Were non-Catholics prefigured in those who left Christ in John 6?

[paidion]

All this has me curious then,

1. Where did the idea of Christ as true flesh and true blood in the last supper come from?Which members of the early church are guilty of mis-interpreting the scriptures?
2. Why did God, who continues to be in the lives of all men and guide all in religious things, allow this heresy to go on for 1500 years, even up until today?

Where I am hungup in seeing your argument moondweller is when I consider the history as well. I just don’t see how any new theological interpretations today trump the beliefs of earlier Christians? Especially the ones who assembled the canon of scripture, but it has been shown here that belief in the real presence was before their time. So, who’s fault is this big misunderstanding?

Sincerely,

-revelations

revelations:

if I may jump in here…

Regarding your first question: that has me stumped as well. When Jesus took the third cup of the seder (the one after the meal aka the Cup of Redemption), He said, “this is my blood [which ratifies] the new covenant, which is poured out for many.” Had the disciples understood Him to say, “you are literally eating my flesh and blood”, they would have been appalled because no Jew would have even considered drinking blood or eating human flesh.

Perhaps there is someone on these forums who might have the time and patience to explain all this. But I have no clue as to how the idea of the bread and wine being real flesh and blood got started. I’m not sure how putting blame on anyone for misinterpreting things would be helpful, though. (Personally, I’m more interested in knowing G-d & His Truth rather than putting blame on anyone/thing.)

Regarding your second question and last paragraph: We live in a fallen world. David (the OT king), wondered why the wicked seemed to prosper. Why did G-d allow Hitler to destroy so many innocent people? Why does He allow Satan to wreak havoc at times?
We (humanity) do a lot of stupid things… we believe a lot of stupid things… and yet G-d allows this (for a time anyway).

Just because something has been believed by a group of people for a very long time, that doesn’t mean that what they believe is necessarily true… doesn’t necessarily make it untrue either. Just makes it an old belief.

Considering that G-d compares us (humans) to sheep (very little brains), it’s a testament to His awesome grace and mercy that we ever get anything correct at all. Think about it. How often do we misunderstand even the people who are closest to us? The folks who lived when Jesus lived here on earth heard the truth first-hand. Yet tho’ He was in their midst, there were so many who had no clue what He was saying/doing.

But at least He did promise that He would send the Holy Spirit to us to teach us and guide us. My confidence in knowing anything at all is purely because of Him and His ability to make Himself known - in spite of my human-ness.

Again, I don’t see any need to place blame anywhere. We’re all sheep.

(hope this makes sense, it’s getting rather late :yawn: )

shalom

 

[paidion]

Because the resurrection LIFE that is transferred to the believer is through faith in the truth concerning the sacrifice of His body and the shedding of His blood for our redemption (the cross, 6:51). Salvation faith internalizes this truth.

Shalom brother,
MD

MD:

Yeah, I get the part about the blood relating to life (the life of something is in the blood).
It just seemed like you were relating the manna to the blood (as well as the flesh).

ah, well, I think I may be “splitting hairs” now and I don’t mean to…
getting rather late…brains are running on low battery

shalom

 

[moondweller]

All this has me curious then,

1. Where did the idea of Christ as true flesh and true blood in the last supper come from?Which members of the early church are guilty of mis-interpreting the scriptures?
2. Why did God, who continues to be in the lives of all men and guide all in religious things, allow this heresy to go on for 1500 years, even up until today?

Where I am hungup in seeing your argument moondweller is when I consider the history as well. I just don’t see how any new theological interpretations today trump the beliefs of earlier Christians? Especially the ones who assembled the canon of scripture, but it has been shown here that belief in the real presence was before their time. So, who’s fault is this big misunderstanding?

Sincerely,

-revelations

The doctrine of “transubstantiation” was unheard of in the early church and was not presented until 831 A.D. by a Benedictine monk named Paschasius Radbertus. He wrote a book “on the Body and Blood of the Lord,” composed for his disciple Placidus of New Corbie in the year 831. He then edited it in a more popular form and dedicated it to the Emperor Charles the Bald as a Christmas gift in 844.

Radbertus didn’t employ the word “transubstantiation” (that term would not come into use for two more centuries), but he taught that the bread and wine effectually changed (efficaciter interius commutatur) into the flesh and blood of Christ, so that after the consecration there is “nothing else in the eucharist but the flesh and blood of Christ,” although “the figure of bread and wine remain” to the senses of sight, touch and taste. His book created a great sensation in the West, but the doctrine itself was not accepted without vigorous opposition.

His contemporary opponents appealed to Augustin and his chief opponent was Ratramnus, a contemporary monk at Corbie, a man of considerable literary reputation. Another opponent was John Scotus Erigena who taught that in the sacrament of the altar the true body and blood of Christ were not present, but only a memorial of them. Another popular opponent in the eleventh century was Berengar. Through Biblical and patristic studies he came to the conclusion that the eucharistic doctrine of Paschasius Radbertus was a vulgar superstition contrary to the Scriptures, to the fathers, and to reason. He considered the discourse in the sixth chapter of John as figurative, and does not refer to the sacrament at all, but to the believing reception of Christ’s death.

The doctrine of Transubstantiation wasn’t proclaimed until 1215 A.D. by Pope Innocent the III, and did not become an official creed until 1564 A.D.

I only posted this to show you that the doctrine was not known in the early church and, contrary to what you think, it had opposition within the Catholic church, nor was it unanimously accepted for 1500 years prior to the Reformation. It was a doctrine that developed after many years and finally accepted only after great controversy and struggle.

 

[inchrist101]

Moondweller GOD Bless you. We just had a sermon on Communion at our Church in which our Pastor almost word for word communicated the same thing you wrote in your posts.

Something that many Roman Catholics (not all) seem to miss in John chapter 6 is that Jesus always equated eating HIS flesh with BELIEVING. He didn’t actually want us to take a physical bite out of his arm. It was BELIEVE IN ME. The key words BELIEVE and IN. Not just acknowledging who I AM but accepting me as your Lord and Savior. Believing IN me.

I remember a Priest at our church growing up teaching us about Communion. During one of the lessons he took out the wafers used for the bread and said, “Now remember boys and girls, this is not Jesus yet, this is merely practicing how you are supposed to receive Jesus.” In looking back I realize now that we were actually participating in Communion in our classroom.

Our Pastor commented that when the Apostles partook in the last supper the reference to the bread and wine as my body and blood made more sense to them from the Sermon Jesus gave at Capernum in the Synagogue. The Lord’s Supper is an outward expression of our Faith in Jesus. The ultimate act of Faith if you will although some will say obedience to Faith. I say you have to have the Faith first before you can obey. This makes even more sense when you read Paul’s letter to the Corinthians and understand what was happening within the church there. They literally were using the Lord’s Supper as an excuse to get drunk while not allowing the poor who were following Christ to partake. They were quick to take their donations but kept them out of the church essentially. I can just imagine going to church today and watching someone who literally interprets - this is my body and blood - devouring a gallon of wine thinking the more wine they drink the more of Christ’s blood they are receiving.

I’ve also always tried to educate Roman Catholics that if we were to take Jesus literally all the time then we would see people walking around with their eyes plucked out and their arms cut off in an attempt to extinguish those body parts committing sin. We’d also expect to see a huge mustard tree in Heaven.

Your explanation was so on point but I was never completely aware of the historical background. Very educational.

PEACE and GOD Bless you.

 

[po18guy]

Moondweller GOD Bless you. We just had a sermon on Communion at our Church in which our Pastor almost word for word communicated the same thing you wrote in your posts.PEACE and GOD Bless you.

I, as a Catholic, pray for both of you, that as the truth which has been revealed to the Apostles and all succeeding generations by the Holy Spirit, will also be revealed to you. Do not denigrate the Sacred Body of Christ as an innovation or invention. You have been greatly mislead, if that is what you have been taught. You both are brother/sister in Christ, but separated from us. Pray for Christian unity, as Christ willed it.

Christ’s peace.

 

[climer97007]

I remember a Priest at our church growing up teaching us about Communion. During one of the lessons he took out the wafers used for the bread and said, “Now remember boys and girls, this is not Jesus yet, this is merely practicing how you are supposed to receive Jesus.” In looking back I realize now that we were actually participating in Communion in our classroom.

It is like a man and a woman who are in love, but who are not yet married. The man goes off to war and writes letters to his fiance. The woman keeps all his letters and charishes them. She takes the letters out every week and re-reads them. She yearns for the day that her marriage to her groom can be consumated in marriage. This is the image of the non-catholic communion of persons. It is waiting for something to happen that has not happened to them yet. The man in the story is Christ, the lettters are the scriptures, and the fiance is the non-catholic church.

In the Catholic view of the Communion of persons, the man and woman have consumated their relationship. The woman still charishes the letters from her husband. In fact, she has been handing them down in her family now for generation after generation. She no longer waits for the consumation, because it has already occurred in the Lambs Supper. The groom has looked upon His lowly handmaid (The Church) and given Himself bodily to her without shame, and without the stain of original sin. It is thus that every Catholic Christian is united in Christ in Holy Communion. Christ comes “into them” like a groom into His Bride, fully, completely, in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity and they consumate their relationship.

This divine Communion of persons does not happen just because a school boy eats a piece of bread or drinks a bit of wine. There is truly no comparison to the reality of true union (Communion) in Christ. Your Priest was right. And now, you have given up the Way of Christ for the thoughts and ways of a little child. There is a time and place for giving up on our childish thoughts and ways, and taking up the loftly Way of Christ.

Gene

 

[moondweller]

Moondweller GOD Bless you. We just had a sermon on Communion at our Church in which our Pastor almost word for word communicated the same thing you wrote in your posts.

Something that many Roman Catholics (not all) seem to miss in John chapter 6 is that Jesus always equated eating HIS flesh with BELIEVING. He didn’t actually want us to take a physical bite out of his arm. It was BELIEVE IN ME. The key words BELIEVE and IN. Not just acknowledging who I AM but accepting me as your Lord and Savior. Believing IN me.

Yes, that is the key to understanding John five and six. The whole point Jesus is making is that men, in dire need of life, receive His life (which is eternal, everlasting) upon belief in Him. Taking His words out of their spiritual context and applying them, literally, to the sacrament causes one to totally miss the import and the impact of His teaching, identifying Himself as the source (bread) of life, altogether.John 5:26 "For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;Catholicism views the Eucharist as re-presenting Christ’s sacrifice. But Jesus is not at all talking about eating His sacrificed (hence, dead) body in these chapters, but receiving His resurrected LIFE (i.e., eternal) through belief in Him. The whole focus of His dialogue with the people is how they may obtain His life.

Not even the sacrament of Communion communicates His LIFE. As the Apostle Paul stated concerning the sacrament: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s DEATH until He comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). But Jesus is revealing the miracle of the transference of His resurrected LIFE to the believer in John six. To the end that the one who believes possesses His life everlasting.

It is significant that John does not even go on to record the institution of the “Lord’s Supper,” but instead he records the words of Jesus that continue to reflect the words He spoke in the fifth and sixth chapters concerning His life in the believer:John 17:20-26 "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, {are} in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me…“O righteous Father, although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me (cf. 6:29); and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.” This is the unity that sets true believers apart from the rest of the world of men, the fact that Christ is in them and they possess His life, which is eternal (see Jn. 5:24).

I can just imagine going to church today and watching someone who literally interprets - this is my body and blood - devouring a gallon of wine thinking the more wine they drink the more of Christ’s blood they are receiving.

Yes, you would think that such a scenario would occur regularly. But of course in Catholicism the cup is normally held from the laity and it is believed that the whole of Jesus (body, blood, soul and divinity) is contained in every minute particle of the host. So the amount of Jesus one gets is not relative to the amount one physically eats.

 

[trustinyou]

Were the “disciples” who complained (protested?) to Christ over His teaching in John 6:60, and who left Him in John 6:66 the prefigurement of those who deny the Eucharist to this day? This possibility struck me recently, as many (not all) n-Cs are uncomfortable explaining how their church’s interpretation of John 6 originated and developed. Remember that all of those who left were considered disciples until they rejected this teaching. Is this not exactly what we face to this day?

I heard a sermon the other day(the late FR.Al Lauer) he said this is where Judas fell away to…John 6:70

 

[po18guy]

Yes, that is the key to understanding John five and six…

Please do not hijack this thread. You are off topic and infringing on forum rule 7. It is obvious that you are a “sola fide” believer. You are free to believe that. It is a new idea in Christianity, and therefore no true Catholic or Eastern Orthodox believes anything close to it. I suggest you have a read of This Is My Body, a compact book written by Mark P. Shea, who was Evangelical. But only if you actually love Christ.

Christ’s peace.

 

[revelations]

Yes good point, to bring this around 180 back to the original topic. Regardless of what Jesus was actually teaching for his disciples to leave him, does it seem reasonable to assume that this was a foreshadowing of times to come in the future.

I think it does. At that time a vast majority of Jesus’ followers lost faith in his teachings, including Judas who betrayed him. Today, there has been a separation from the church and it is a gaping wound that has to be healed. When Christ died and resurrected, i wonder what happened to those who turned away from him during his time on earth? Did they hear about it and turn back?

So, irregardless of what Jesus was teaching that day (it could have been the sky is green, who cares) is it a feasible thing to say that there are many who say they follow Christ today (as they did then) but not all with the fullness of faith in him, and was this pre-figured by the turning away of disciples in John 6? I think so.

What do you guys think? IRREGARDLESS of what the teachings were, even if the same teaching today happens to be the largest stumbling block for many…Irregardless

 

[inchrist101]

=revelations;3281584 Yes good point, to bring this around 180 back to the original topic. Regardless of what Jesus was actually teaching for his disciples to leave him, does it seem reasonable to assume that this was a foreshadowing of times to come in the future.

Absolutely.

I think it does. At that time a vast majority of Jesus’ followers lost faith in his teachings, including Judas who betrayed him. Today, there has been a separation from the church and it is a gaping wound that has to be healed. When Christ died and resurrected, i wonder what happened to those who turned away from him during his time on earth? Did they hear about it and turn back?

Good question. Peter himself turned away until Jesus paid him a personal visit. Had Jesus not done this what would have been the fate of Peter??? Remember when Jesus said “You believe because you see, but blessed are those who do not see me and still believe.”

So, irregardless of what Jesus was teaching that day (it could have been the sky is green, who cares) is it a feasible thing to say that there are many who say they follow Christ today (as they did then) but not all with the fullness of faith in him, and was this pre-figured by the turning away of disciples in John 6? I think so.

If Jesus appeared to us today and said believe in me, the sky is green. What would we do?? We may turn around and say that guy is wacko. Has a screw loose. We may do exactly what they did in the synagogue and demand a sign be given. Sometimes we think we really believe but when things don’t go the way we expect we turn away.

I’ll give you a good example. A close friend of mine will not even believe GOD exists unless GOD HIMSELF appears to him and gives him a sign. I’ve had great discussions with him and made countless points which left him saying “HMMM good point”. But then he still comes back later and says “But we really don’t know” to which I always respond “Yes in my heart I do.” So I finally asked if he had ever prayed to GOD to help him understand. He said yes when my sister was terminally ill with cancer. I said what were your prayers. His response was I prayed for a miracle that she be healed. Unfortunately she died. So I asked if GOD had granted him that miracle would he believe. He said probably. So he still was leaving the door open to the possibility of not believing. So I asked why are you only giving GOD one shot at proving his existence to you. I challenged him to search his heart to see if he was really asking GOD to heal his sister or if he was just asking for proof so he could decide if he believed or not. I also asked that he search his heart to determine what he would do if GOD presented HIMSELF on his front doorstep. Would you truly believe at that point or just say, “that’s nice”.

So back to the question, the followers of Jesus had plenty of signs and yes, regardless of the difficulties of HIS teaching they couldn’t make that true leap of Faith and just BELIEVE. Not yelling just making a strong point

What do you guys think? IRREGARDLESS of what the teachings were, even if the same teaching today happens to be the largest stumbling block for many…Irregardless

100% on point.

 

[inchrist101]

I heard a sermon the other day(the late FR.Al Lauer) he said this is where Judas fell away to…John 6:70

Let’s be careful with this one. Judas didn’t fall away because he had a hard time with this teaching. Judas truly believed but let his craving for money get in the way. He hung himself over the guilt. The people that turned away from Jesus that day were also some of the same ones yelling crucify HIM. I doubt they hung themselves over the guilt.

I caution you only because you may get someone responding to you that sees this as a statement towards Protestants being equal to Judas. We can split hairs over what Jesus really meant and I can show you plenty of early church fathers who did not subscribe to transubstantiation. But that doesn’t mean they don’t believe and would turn away from Jesus.

There’s a big difference between having trouble understanding a teaching, and actually turning away from Jesus. Protestants didn’t turn away from the church because of transubstantiation.

 

[climer97007]

Let’s be careful with this one. Judas didn’t fall away because he had a hard time with this teaching… Protestants didn’t turn away from the church because of transubstantiation.

No, Luther did not disagree with Transubstantiation. And he prayed to the virgin Mary, etc… Yet, the Lutherans today are elevating women to shepherd their flocks.

King Henry did not disagree with Transubstantiation either. Yet, the Anglican Church has walked bodily away from the One Unifying sacrifice of the Mass, rejects the sacramentality of Marriage, and no longer believes in Transubstantiation.

All those who have turned away from the Christ “bodily” admit in themselves a serious sin. The sin can not withstand the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Christ. And so, for all the non-Catholic Churches, the strength of the One who alone can save them has been rejected in favor of the weakness of human frailty and sin.

Whether you are willing to admit that rejecting Christ in the Eucharist is significant or not, or whether you practice a mere pretense of communion, the Way, the Truth and the Life of Christ is still abiding in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Catholic Church, both Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox, and it has for over 2,000 years in these Churches.

The faithfulness of the Greek Orthodox have withstood the test of time even while rejecting the authority of the Papacy. Because they have clung to the greater strength of Christ in all seven Sacraments, including the Eucharist, by the Way!

One need only look at the witness of these truly Christ centered Churches to see what strngthens them, and conversely, what it is which weakens the non-catholic churches.

Gene

 

[po18guy]

No, Luther did not disagree with Transubstantiation. And he prayed to the virgin Mary, etc… Yet, the Lutherans today are elevating women to shepherd their flocks.

Excellent points. FAITH! FAITH! FAITH! is all we ever hear is needed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. But, the minute we have FAITH that the Eucharist is His Body and Blood, we become the ones that are all messed up! Incredible. Let’s PRAY PRAY PRAY for them, that we may be one.

Christ’s peace.

 

[climer97007]

Excellent points. FAITH! FAITH! FAITH! is all we ever hear is needed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. But, the minute we have FAITH that the Eucharist is His Body and Blood, we become the ones that are all messed up! Incredible. Let’s PRAY PRAY PRAY for “them”, that we may be one.

What?
Pray for them?
Pray for us!
We all need the saving gift of Christ! Amen!
We need Him in the written Word!
We need Him in the Word made flesh!
We need Him in His sinless Flesh!
We need Him in the Holy Spirit!
We need Him in all of His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity!
We don’t just need part of Him.
We need all of Him! Amen!
That is my prayer.
That He may make us One through Him, with Him, and in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit!
Sound familiar?
And after this prayer during mass, we receive all of Him.
He enters into our being as the Groom enters His Bride.
He holds nothing back from us.
There is no condom to capture His substance and throw it away.
There is no birth control to prevent His seed from growing in us.
This is Heaven upon earth! Amen!
The union of the Christ with His people! Amen! Amen! Amen!
Gene

 

[po18guy]

What?
Pray for them?
Pray for us!
We all need the saving gift of Christ! Amen!
We need Him in the written Word!
We need Him in the Word made flesh!
We need Him in His sinless Flesh!
We need Him in the Holy Spirit!
We need Him in all of His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity!
We don’t just need part of Him.
We need all of Him! Amen!
That is my prayer.
That He may make us One through Him, with Him, and in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit!
Sound familiar?
And after this prayer during mass, we receive all of Him.
He enters into our being as the Groom enters His Bride.
He holds nothing back from us.
There is no condom to capture His substance and throw it away.
There is no birth control to prevent His seed from growing in us.
This is Heaven upon earth! Amen!
The union of the Christ with His people! Amen! Amen! Amen!
Gene

Absolutely! However, it is neither lost time nor worthless prayer to cause the Holy Spirit to illumine the hearts of those who do not believe in the fullness of Christ.

Christ’s peace.

 

[ralphinal]

Why did he mention Blood at all? As seen in John 6, this was scandelous to the Jews of the time. It did not seem to have the same effect at the last supper. I feel that they began to understand what Jesus was saying.

We know that God specified that the blood of an animal contained its life-force. I think that Jesus was calling upon that as part of his teaching. If we take him at hist word, we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Now, you can say that “eating his flesh” is believing, but then why did he mention the blood at all? He knew the effect that concept would have on the listeners. Further, why not say it WHEN he taught Jon 6? Many point to John 5, but that was days or weeks before, and it was only to the Apostles, when he said that doing the Father’s work was food. No, he meant eat and drink.

Now, it is impossible for us today to eat or drink as he lived so long ago. Further, Jesus wanted to give us a way to consume him that would not offend our senses. That is the Euchirist.

 

[moondweller]

Absolutely! However, it is neither lost time nor worthless prayer to cause the Holy Spirit to illumine the hearts of those who do not believe in the fullness of Christ.

Christ’s peace.

“The fulness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13) is not that Christ now comes to us in wafer form, but growing in the knowledge of all that He did for us in bodily form while on this earth, and what He now accomplishes for us in bodily form in heaven as our High Priest functioning as our Intercessor and Advocate before the Father.

Based on the direction you’ve taking this thread, how is it you accused me of hijacking it?

 

[inchrist101]

No, Luther did not disagree with Transubstantiation. And he prayed to the virgin Mary, etc… Yet, the Lutherans today are elevating women to shepherd their flocks.

King Henry did not disagree with Transubstantiation either. Yet, the Anglican Church has walked bodily away from the One Unifying sacrifice of the Mass, rejects the sacramentality of Marriage, and no longer believes in Transubstantiation.

All those who have turned away from the Christ “bodily” admit in themselves a serious sin. The sin can not withstand the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Christ. And so, for all the non-Catholic Churches, the strength of the One who alone can save them has been rejected in favor of the weakness of human frailty and sin.

Whether you are willing to admit that rejecting Christ in the Eucharist is significant or not, or whether you practice a mere pretense of communion, the Way, the Truth and the Life of Christ is still abiding in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Catholic Church, both Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox, and it has for over 2,000 years in these Churches.

The faithfulness of the Greek Orthodox have withstood the test of time even while rejecting the authority of the Papacy. Because they have clung to the greater strength of Christ in all seven Sacraments, including the Eucharist, by the Way!

One need only look at the witness of these truly Christ centered Churches to see what strngthens them, and conversely, what it is which weakens the non-catholic churches.

Gene

Climer whoever said I rejected Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist?? I have a different thought about it. Are you interested?

Let me ask you this. If I could show you early church fathers who disagreed with Transubstantiation would you say they were wrong?

• Tertullian stated "Christ, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, made it His body by saying, “This is my body’, that is, the figure of my body.” **Not the real body **
• Origen, acknowledges “that they (bread and wine) are figures which are written in the sacred volumes; therefore as spiritual not as carnal, examine and understand what is said. For if as carnal you receive them, they hurt, not nourish you.”
• Both Cyril of Jerusalem and Eusebius of Caesarea denied Transubstantiation.

If I could show you that the Apostles did not teach it would you then be willing to open your eyes a little that maybe Rome interpreted this wrong?? Or would you say “they just can’t be wrong, they just can’t be”

Take some time and research Mithraism. Take special note of the clothing they wear, and the sacrifices they offer in worship. Little too close to the mass for me. Jesus already made the sacrifice. No need to keep doing it.

 

[inchrist101]

Why did he mention Blood at all? As seen in John 6, this was scandelous to the Jews of the time. It did not seem to have the same effect at the last supper. I feel that they began to understand what Jesus was saying.

We know that God specified that the blood of an animal contained its life-force. I think that Jesus was calling upon that as part of his teaching. If we take him at hist word, we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Now, you can say that “eating his flesh” is believing, but then why did he mention the blood at all? He knew the effect that concept would have on the listeners. Further, why not say it WHEN he taught Jon 6? Many point to John 5, but that was days or weeks before, and it was only to the Apostles, when he said that doing the Father’s work was food. No, he meant eat and drink.

Now, it is impossible for us today to eat or drink as he lived so long ago. Further, Jesus wanted to give us a way to consume him that would not offend our senses. That is the Euchirist.

Take note of what I posted for Climer.

**Tertullian **stated "Christ, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, made it His body by saying, “This is my body’, that is, the figure of my body.” not physical.

Origen, acknowledges "that they (bread and wine) are figures which are written in the sacred volumes; therefore as spiritual not as carnal, examine and understand what is said. For if as carnal you receive them, they hurt, not nourish you."

Tertullian did not believe in the physical presence nor did Origen and both Cyril of Jerusalem and Eusebius of Caesarea denied it as well. Only spiritual. This is my belief and many other Roman Catholics I know. Not that you would care but just thought I’d share. Now aren’t these folks early church fathers.