it is also the reason why St. Paul said your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. when you receive Jesus Christ in the flesh, in the eucharist, you receive God Himself. and just as the temple of Jerusalem is kept pure for the Holy Spirit to reside, so must you be holy for God to reside in you.
@@nathanoppy Nathan, Say this to yourself: It is not hard to love the God who created me out of love; there's no other like me. Follow with 1 Our Father, 1 Hail Mary and 1 Glory be.
Not contextually. 1 Corinthians 6:17-18 ESV But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. [18] Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. THEN paul speaks without break in relation to SEXUAL sin 1 Corinthians 6:19 ESV Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, Then he says… 1 Corinthians 6:20 ESV for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. Abstain from sexual sin. Not fill your belly with Jesus.
@@nathanoppy you struggle because your trying to cooperate to earn. Instead, lean on christ in faith to change. Absorb the gospel and allow change to manifest within you versus trying to change under your own human will. 2 Corinthians 5:21 ESV For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. Romans 4:4-5 ESV Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. [5] And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, Romans 4:8 ESV blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin." If you are born of the spirit in regeneration then you are a new creation. Romans 5:1 ESV Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Condemnation no longer resides on you and your human sin can no longer damn you. Romans 8:1 ESV There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
That is a very great question, that is one I haven't heard used yet in Catholic apologetics what would Jesus truly have to say to get people to believe in the real presence
@@jeffscully50613 Suppose this: Jesus would never ask of us to literally do such an insane thing. Jesus never corrected the Samaritan woman who said “Give me this water so I shall never thirst.” But yet he didn’t mean she would never had to draw water again and drink it. (Compare John 6:35) Or should we be without understanding like Nicodemus and crawl back into our mothers? Was it possible for them to eat his flesh and drink his blood THAT day when he spoke it? Or would they have to wait a few years later when he had his last meal with the apostles? Jesus made it clear that eating his flesh is coming to him/following/believing him throughout John 6.
Ultimately, the correct interpretation of any Scripture is a matter of authority rather than of the pure application of reason and logic. However, I think it is useful to be able to provide such strong reasons for the Catholic interpretation before moving on to the more fundamental issue of authority. So the point-for-point back-and-forth is not without value!
Putting the dots together, it seems that those not accepting the Eucharist are in fact repeating what the disciples had done when they left Jesus. That the Father hasn’t revealed it to them. And that they don’t have the life of Christ within them and will not be resurrected.. It is quite troubling that the same book leads to such divergent conclusions. Thank you for the video.
I've been in the Church for four years now and I'm just scratching the surface. The other day I was struck by how beautiful a prayer the "Glory Be" is. There's so many layers to the faith and they're missing out. I pray they all convert, especially my family, living and dead.
Thank you bro Karlo. Its a very good presentation on John 6. If i can also shortly share: I'm always asking most evangelicals, that when Jesus compared in eating his flesh and drinking his blood with his Ascension (But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you?" Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? Jn. 6:61-62). Does his Ascension, a metaphor which was pertained as symbolical? Or does he literally ascended ? Well we can't find that Jesus ascend as a dove or butterfly in heaven. BUT HE LITERALLY ASCENDED to HEAVEN. "When he had said this, as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight." Acts 1:9 NRSV-CI * Then most of them will pause ,think & they will change verse or topic.
Correction: Jesus clarifies what he was saying in verse 63 after many of his disciples left him as it is stated in verse 60. Did anyone else catch his incorrect statement at 16:45 of his talk?
Amen! plus it was fully understood by Gods people that participation in a sacrifice was to eat (partake) in it - just as Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 10:16-18!!!
@@joycegreer9391 Exodus 12:1-25 " you must **EAT** the Lamb"..."This law is for you and your descendants **forever** . "... Mat 5:17 " Do not think that I have come to abolish the law, but to **fulfill** it! " 1 Cor 1-:16-18 " Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a **participation** in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a **participation** in the body of Christ?" Rev 12:17 - "Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of **her** **offspring** -those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus."
@@joycegreer9391 protestants troll Catholics and Catholics simply tell Protestants to stop trolling Catholics You are very judgemental if you think Catholics are not Christians
Jesus said there would be few who found the hard and narrow path to life, and many who would take the broad path to perdition. Jesus also said to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood was to have life. The few remained, the many walked, and we ought not be surprised at it
@@Call_Upon_YAH TL;DR. Even the devil can (and does) quote the Bible. God gave us a Church, and the Church wrote the Bible. Knowing what the Bible means requires the interpretation of the Institution which wrote it. Try again, but briefer next time
@@zacharyvandress1120 are you trying to imply the Apostolic Writers weren’t part of the Church, the Body of Christ? Of course “the Church” wrote the Bible; it’s members wrote the books, organized the books, rejected the things false or not worth keeping… what’s your point?
@ArchetypeGotoh The Bible is both the old and the New Testament and it was inspired works of individual people.The church put The Bible together it did not write The Bible and it put The Bible together and decided what books would be in The Bible. Individual people at certain times were part of the church but the church in no way wrote scripture. Any Catholic theologian would tell you the same. My point is the statement you made is not accurate.
@@zacharyvandress1120 technically, if by “the church” you mean “the physical building, then yes, “the Church” didn’t write the Bible; bricks and mortar cannot pick up pens and parchment. Any other application of your statement is so obvious it didn’t need to be said. The through line of my comments has been that the members of the Church *are* the Church, and the members of the Church wrote the Bible, in exactly the same way as you mean when you say “the Church” “put the Bible together.” If the Church can put the Bible together, the Church can write the Bible. Claiming otherwise is just foolishness. Be consistent with your standards.
If I am a true believer in Jesus, would it be really hard and difficult to just believe his words? I find no error in following his words and contemplating those words. Chances are, his words were true.
Romans 10:9-10 ESV because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. [10] For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. Catholic transubstantiation profits nothing but work due outside the blood covering of Christ. Romans 4:4-5 ESV Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. [5] And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, Jesus uses parallelism in this discourse to equate believing with eating his flesh. Note the parallel between verse 40 and verse 54: (Jn. 6:40) “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” (Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” According to this parallel, beholding and believing (v.40) are equated with eating and drinking Christ’s flesh (v.54). This is further paralleled by verse 35: (Jn. 6:35) I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. (Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” To “hunger” and “thirst” and parallel to the one who “eats” and “drinks.” But note what Jesus says satisfies our hunger: “He who comes to Me… he who believes in Me.” Jesus isn’t speaking about his literal flesh and blood any more than he is speaking about literal bread (Jn. 6:35) or literal water (Jn. 4:10-14). Indeed, Jesus uses the term sarx for his “body,” rather than the common term sōma (which was the common term used in the Lord’s Supper). Indeed, the “term ‘flesh’ is never used in the NT to refer to the Lord’s Supper.”[4] Hence, this seems “to caution against a sacramental or eucharistic understand of these verses.”[5] This is why Augustine of Hippo wrote regarding this passage: “Believe, and you have eaten.” Jesus works in metaphor’s, analogy and hyperbole. In Mark 8 Jesus uses bread language again anhesd calls out those confused thinking he’s being literal not realizing the spiritual message.
(Jn. 6:40) “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” (Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” According to this parallel, beholding and believing (v.40) are equated with eating and drinking Christ’s flesh (v.54). This is further paralleled by verse 35: (Jn. 6:35) I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. (Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” To “hunger” and “thirst” and parallel to the one who “eats” and “drinks.” But note what Jesus says satisfies our hunger: “He who comes to Me… he who believes in Me.” Jesus isn’t speaking about his literal flesh and blood any more than he is speaking about literal bread (Jn. 6:35) or literal water (Jn. 4:10-14). Indeed, Jesus uses the term sarx for his “body,” rather than the common term sōma (which was the common term used in the Lord’s Supper). Indeed, the “term ‘flesh’ is never used in the NT to refer to the Lord’s Supper.”[4] Hence, this seems “to caution against a sacramental or eucharistic understand of these verses.”[5] This is why Augustine of Hippo wrote regarding this passage: “Believe, and you have eaten.” At the Council of Trent Rome taught her belief was affirmed by “all our forefathers” (Thirteenth Session, Chapter 1, The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. However, this is certainly not the case. Didache 9.1 - (AD 100) Now, concerning the Eucharist, practice it as follows. " First, concerning the cup: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your son, which you made known to us through Jesus your son, glory to you forever a Next, concerning the broken bread: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you made known to us through Jesus your son, glory to you forever b4 Just as this broken bread was being scattered over the mountains and being brought together it became one; likewise bring together your church from the ends of the earth into your kingdom, so that yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever cs But none shall eat or shall drink from your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; for also concerning this the Lord has said, "Do give not what is holy to the dogs." The Didache (AD 100): “On the Lord’s day assemble and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure. If any have a dispute with his fellow, let him not come to the assembly till they be reconciled, that your sacrifice be not polluted. For this is the sacrifice spoken of by the Lord; ‘In every place and at every time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great king, said the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the Gentiles; (Mal. i. 11, 14).” This doesn’t refer to Jesus’ sacrifice, but to “your sacrifice.” The same Greek word for “sacrifice” (thusia) is used of Jesus’ sacrifice (Heb. 5:1), but it is also used of doing good deeds, praise, and financial giving (Heb. 13:15-16; Phil. 4:18). The same book also refers to the supper as the “cup” and the “bread,” and a means of remembering Jesus’ sacrifice in thanksgiving (Didache, 9). Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 180) stated that the elements do not lose the nature of bread and wine (Against Heresies, 4.18.4-5; 5.2.2). Tertullian (AD 200) said Jesus’ statement was figurative (Against Marcion, 3.19). Clement of Alexandria (AD 200) called the bread and wine symbols of Jesus’ body (The Instructor, I.6). Origen (AD 250) held his typical allegorical and spiritual view when referring to the elements in the Last Supper. Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 340) called the elements the body and blood of Christ, but also referred to them as symbolic of spiritual realities (On the Theology of the Church, 3.2.12). Augustine (AD 350) believed that John 6:53 should be understood spiritually and symbolically-not literalistically (On Christian Doctrine 3.16.2). Gelasius I (5th century pope): “The sacrament which we receive of the body and blood of Christ is a divine thing. Wherefore also by means of it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to be… Thus, as the elements pass into this, that is, the divine substance by the Holy Ghost, and none the less remain in their own proper nature.” Transubstantiation was a medieval development versus a patristic origin. Christ is present in the Eucharist, but not in a physical transubstantiated State. Hence the whole point of the verse in question. He is present with us mysteriously and spiritually, and the necessity of the Eucharist is correct in the Roman church in that it must be practiced frequently as a practice of the regenerate believer, rather than as a salvific practice to regenerate the unbeliever.
Dr. White (like me) uses the King James Version, but John 6:66 in the KJV starts with "From that time...", which would imply the "and this" temporal sense. I guess Dr. White only likes the KJV when it suits his meaning.
@@cdeep4548 John 6:66's being the verse that talks about people leaving Christ is either perfectly spot on, the greatest coincidence of all time, or some combination of the two.
@@cdeep4548 Chapter and verse are not part of the original Scriptures. They were added many centuries later to make for easy reference. The divisions can sometimes be misleading and result in interpretive error.
John is the only evangelist who did not write the story of the institution of the Eucharist, because in the 6th chapter he already told about the Eucharist long enough. Instead, to complete the other evangelists, he talked about the washing of the feet which no other apostle wrote about. Both aspects of priesthood (sanctification and service) are shown. The story of the institution is clear enough to imagine John 6 is metaphorical.
Also important to remember that John 6 also takes place on Passover. At the beginning of John 6, it says the Passover was at hand when he feeds the 5000. The next day he gives the bread of life discourse.
John 6 was written by John after the heretics began to say that the other gospels didn’t mean the literal flesh and blood of Christ. John wrote his gospel to directly put down the heresy that Jesus was not divine and that the Eucharist was not the real flesh and blood of Christ. This is why he John 1 talks about Jesus’ divinity as well as John 6 literally saying it’s the flesh and blood of Christ. And why he has the verse in there about the disciples being shocked by it … to the point where they left in disgust. Paul is also clear in his epistles to the Corinthians that it is the body and blood of Christ. This is why Christian’s believe this. Christ didn’t mince words. John’s gospel is putting down the heretical teachings that had started in the first few decades by people who were not even taught by Jesus let alone at the last supper. Your interpretation of it being symbolic is not even in the bible. But that is par for your kind who don’t even have a trace of apostolic succession amongst your clergy. Just common folk who twist the bible into a man made religion.
This is why few actually are obedient to God. They ignore what the first Christian’s taught and that the gospel of John was the last gospel written during a time when heresies had already started. This is why his language on the Eucharist and other topics is so literal with what the apostles believed to dispel the heresy new converts and those who were not witnesses had begun to spread: that Jesus was not divine, that Jesus did not rise from the dead, that the Eucharist was not the actual flesh and blood of Jesus
@@joycegreer9391 papacy is not blasphemy it's a gift from God I've seen plenty of scripture go against Protestantism but none against the teachings of the Catholic church
@@andreeattieh2963 The papacy is most definitely blasphemous. You haven't seen any scripture against Protestant. You obviously can't understand scripture. What you see is against majority of RCC teachings, but you only read with eisegesis from your indoctrination. You are incapable of seeing truth, thinking for yourself, having any critical thinking skills. All your comments prove that. They are all simple and repetitive.
@@paulcapaccio9905 Nonsense. Salvation is ONLY belief and faith in Jesus, nothing else. Not sacraments, not some church, not penance, not anything else.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia cautions: “We should not rely too heavily on the literalness of the words ‘This IS my body’ or ‘This IS my blood.’” This authoritative encyclopedia admits that the wording at Matthew 26:26-28 does not prove that the bread and the wine were changed into Jesus’ literal body and blood at the Last Supper! Jesus was speaking figuratively and he compared himself to bread because through his sacrifice he would impart life to mankind. John 6:35,40 clearly indicates that the eating and drinking would be done by exercising faith in Jesus Christ. 😊
MATTHEW 16:18...AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD "MY CHURCH"...JESUS SAID "..."MY CHURCH"...IT'S JESUS' CHURCH..!! EPHESIANS 5:23-25...EVEN AS CHRIST IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH:AND HE IS THE SAVIOUR OF THE BODY. THEREFORE AS THE CHURCH IS SUBJECT (SUBMISSIVE) UNTO CHRIST,...EVEN AS CHRIST ALSO LOVED THE CHURCH AND GAVE HIMSELF FOR IT. CLEARLY...CLEARLY IT IS CHRIST CHURCH..!!
@Lupe Lo So according to you St. Paul’s warning on partaking body and blood of Jesus while in Sin is also about faith 😂😂😂😂😂, please just stop misinterpreting the word of Jesus Christ, it will come back to haunt you.
“Believe in me, and never hunger” Also, “Eat my flesh and drink my blood and have life within you.” Catholic response: I believe, and so i eat Protestant response: I believe, and so i refuse to eat
John 6:35, Yeshua said to them, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to Me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in Me will never be thirsty.” John 6 should not be confused with The Lord’s Supper… Matthew 26, is in the context of the Passover Seder, which was replaced with Easter, after the Council of Nicea… Nowhere in Scripture does it teach to stop observing Passover… Jesus observed Passover… Romans 6:10 For the death He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life He lives, He lives to God. How can anyone teach that Matthew 26 is = to transubstantiation? How can anyone teach that there’s any evidence in Scripture of an unbloody sacrifice, performed by priests, on an alter, which involves the actual body of the Son of God, which provides forgiveness of sin, which is worshipped equally to God? The eating of the unleavened bread, and the drinking of the wine, are clearly explained in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. Any teaching that goes away from this teaching, must be rejected… Everything in the Passover Seder is symbolic, it’s done in remembrance… Yeshua is the fulfillment of Scripture, not the replacement of Scripture… People don’t have a right to change the meaning of Scripture, or make tradition equal to it, according to their own choosing… We eat the unleavened bread, and drink the wine, to remember that Jesus Christ died for our sin, a once for all death.
Great video, as always with Mr Carlo and Catholic answers. But me personally go really tired with the presented here Protestant gymnastics - in a sense how people understand the Bible verses 1500 or 2,000 year after the gospels were written is really irrelevant. The most important is how those words were understood by the Christians lived with and heard Jesus Christ, meaning the apostles and the early church. And there's enough clarification to refute any objections.
Catholic answers- John 6:51..I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: Is Jesus a literal walking real life bread?"If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever.If you were there catholic when Jesus said "If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever". How are you going to literally eat the living bread to have eternal life while Jesus still alive?? Jesus said "if you don't eat my flesh and drink my blood now you don't have life in you. How are you going to literally eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood while he was still alive to have eternal life know??Name just one disciple or
Luke 6:53 Jesus said to them, " I am telling you the truth, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in yourselves. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them to life on the last day. 55 For my flesh is the real food, my blood is the real drink. 56 THOSE WHO EAT MY FLESH AND DRINK MY BLOOD LIVE IN ME, AND I LIVE IN THEM 57 The living Father sent me, and because of him I live also. In the same way whoever eat me will live because of me 58 This, then, is the bread that came down from heaven, it is not like the bread that your ANCESTORS EAT. THEY LATER DIED, BUT THOSE WHO EAT THIS BREAD WILL LIVE FOR EVER, 22:19 Then he took a piece of bread, gave thanks to God broke it, and gave it to them saying " This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in memory of me. " 20-21 But, look! The one who betray me is here at the table with me, the people they don't believe the body and blood of Jesus, they know Jesus from there words, but the heart is far away,
As a recompense Jesus manifested his divinity to his three very faithful and committed apostles in the transfiguration. John 5:47 But if you do not believe his - Moses - writings, how will you believe my words? John 12:47-50 And if anyone hears my words and does not observe them, I do not condemn him, for I did not come to condemn the world but to save the world. Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words has something to judge him: the word that I spoke, it will condemn him on the last day, because I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. So what I say, I say as the Father told me.
none of Christ's apostles or disciples ate His flesh or drank His blood. Christ was speaking symbolically/metaphorically, as He often did in His parables. He (in John 6) was speaking about accepting Him spiritually as Lord and Savior.
I'm certainly glad James White never translated the Bible. He seems to lean quite heavily on his understanding of Greek to invent up his own ideas of what Scripture says. Him, 1 person. All the other bible translations many many people, and yet they always fail to properly translate according to James White! Then of course there is the fact that the Apostles were teaching and not reading. According to the James Whites, the Apostle were incompetent.
It's important to learn how Jesus tought ? and how his Apostle tought why BECAUSE WE WERE NOT THERE IN 2000 YRS AGO SO WE DONT BELIEVE OURSELVES "WE BELIEF ON THEM ON HOW THEY READ BIBLE AND INTERPRATE SYSTEMATICALLY S0 MATERIAL (BIBLE)ARE OUT IT US TO FIND THE TRUTH. REMEMBER JESUS TOUGHT FROM THE BOOK OF MOSES,PROPHET AND PSALM CONCERN THE THING TO HIMSELF LUKE 24:44-48 ,THEN HIS DISCIPLES(Apostle)...WROTE DOCTRINE STATING FROM MOSES SYSTEMATICALLY LOOK WHAT JOHN WRITE John 1:1 quote from Gen 1:1 So simple speaking Jesus was STUDENT of Moses meaning he quotied from Moses and use the word EAT from Genesis and John wrote it. Genesis 3:6 KJV [6] And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did EAT, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did EAT. Then John document word from Jesus John 6:53-54 KJV [53] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye EAT(greek word Phago) the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. [54] Whoso EATETH(greek word Trogo means gnow or chew) my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. USES OF TROGO IN THE BIBLE Matthew 24:38 KJV [38] For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating(TROGO) and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, TROGO OR PHOGO are the word Jesus used to quote Moses from book of Genesis 3:6, so Spiritual application of TROGO IS THE FAITH IN JESUS RESURRECTION without even eating literal. Because Saith Paul STATED clearly in 2Cor, that EATING (TROGO) is like to say NOT BELIEVING where Mosese has showed us Eva EAT the fruit 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 KJV [3] But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. [4] For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. PAUL EXPLAN GEN 3:6 IN 2COR. Jesus DID TOUGHT TO EAT (TROGO)HIS FRESH meaning to believe HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION.... Another word John quote from Moses Genesis 2:8 KJV [8] And the LORD God planted a GARDEN eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. John 19:41 KJV [41] Now in the place where he was crucified there was a GARDEN; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. SCRIPTURES POITING TORWAD CHRIST BY FAITH ONLY.
The whole point of John 6 is missed when you assume Jesus was trying to “ease” the understanding for this disciples. Jesus specified in verse 64 that he knew they did not believe from the beginning. They were never really disciples. By alluding to his ascension, he is asking a rhetorical question. “What if you were to see me ascend to where I came from? Would THAT change your hearts?” Just like there were ancestors in the desert who saw God’s miraculous provision for 40 years, the miracle did not change their hearts; and those who did not believe were barred from entering Jerusalem’s gates. We see the same thing in John 6 if the disciples were to see him ascend to heaven. They sought him NOT because they witnessed the miracles, but because they only cared about its provision. So if they never believed from the beginning, what were they not believing in? Eating his flesh? That’s impossible because the idea had never crossed their minds yet. John 6 exposes our inability to follow Christ based on our own terms (fleshly motives). Motives that satisfy the flesh yield no everlasting benefit because Jesus’ pursuit is countercultural and focused on eternal life. We live by him, as our bodies live by our food. To “come” is to eat, and “believe” is to drink - Because he lives, so shall those who believe on him. Therefore, do not work for the food that perishes. Our motive for following Christ must come from hearing and learning from the Father, and those whom the Father draws are then given to Christ, and believe on him. If we seek Jesus for the wrong reasons, we will not find what we are looking for. Therefore, look to his sacrifice and believe in his saving work if you are hungry for the bread of life. The Jews’ ancestors in the desert relied on physical manna for sustenance, and yet died. Jesus is stating he is different* in substance* and in provision*, and is everlasting bread that “endures” to eternal life. The Jews perceived spiritual things in a carnal sense. This is a recurring theme throughout John as we see in the other “I Am’s”. Their temper inclined them to conceal any other sense they had of it, and to represent what our Saviour said as exceedingly absurd. They did not yet understand that by “giving”, Jesus was referring to himself being crucified. Their concept of a dying messiah was so foreign to their original plans to make him King by force in John 6. Also notice the tense of Jesus’ verb usage in verse 54. “Eats” and “drinks” are in the present tense active. A more correct way to read it is whoever “is eating” and “is drinking”… Jesus is not speaking of a periodic meal, but rather a perpetual feeding and drinking that never ceases. The disciples heard what the Jews heard. We can infer most of the Jews had already left at this point, because Jesus shifted his conversational direction to the disciples. The disciples said “this is a hard saying. Who can Agree”… ? A stumbling block. “Do you stumble at this?” If this hinders your faith, what if you were to see the son of man glorified? He is asking rhetorically if their hearts would change if they saw him ascend to heaven. He calls them out and says they were never believers to begin with. Their Fathers witnessed miraculous bread come down from heaven for 40 years in the desert, yet they still did not believe. These false disciples would then witness Jesus’s ascension and be totally unphased from God’s glory, just like their fathers who ate manna and died. The disciples left because Jesus totally stripped away their leverage for following him. There is nothing they could have said in order to use him to further benefit from his miracles. He took away the Jews’ false motive by shocking them with what appeared to be a strange idea of eating flesh. He took away the disciples false motive by proving they were never believers to begin with. A classic case of living by bread alone! The best way to get rid of false disciples and to prevent creating them, is to dismantle their motives. Witnessing a miracle alone will not get them to hear the Father. That is the entire message of John 6! It has nothing to do with the Lords supper (which was over a year later). In face, Jesus likens himself to manna, not the Passover matzoh. Totally different connotation.
Ye are saved by Grace through Faith, not of your works " The Emphasis is on Grace not Faith, The Grace comes through the Communion received as a Mother that feeds her Baby, taken directly to the mouth, for hands denote wages of one's work Nevertheless Faith has its works within for Faith without works is dead Render unto God what is to God FAITH, without which it is not possible to please God but surely not a Leavened/Corrupted Faith as in Protestantism's Faith Only What specifically Consistite the Faith? Answer : THE TWO COMMANDMENTS OF LOVE, denoted by the Bronze image of St Peter in Peters Basilica, The Two Commandments of Love that hang in the two keys of heaven The Universal Doctrine of the Catholic Faith, consistent with the Sacred Heart of Jesus -- The Two Commandments of Love that Burns in his Heart God is Love & Love has its works, In the two Commandments hang all of the Law & Prophets Revelations The Elect who keep the Commanments & have his testimony,
@@joycegreer9391 That's not what Jesus said. He said... John 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” And after the Jews complained... 53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. Then in Matthew-Luke at the Last Supper Jesus held up bread and said, "this IS my body". He did not say, "this represents my body".
That is Catholism 100%. That is also the reason the Jews rejected Jesus. It was a language too hard to understand. Jesus is the Eucharist! He is Holy! He is King!
So enlightening and eye opening. Pure revelation from above. ""Flesh and blood did not reveal that to you but my Father who is in heaven." The Jews had difficulty with drinking the blood of Jesus because the law forbade to drink blood as the "life is in the blood;" they probably reasoned that this would have caused them to blatantly break the law. Their forefathers had eaten mana in the wilderness, the bread that came down from heaven every morning and did not live forever but died and yet if they ate the true bread from heaven, the body of Christ they would live forever. By the way, even the New Testament forbids Christians to drink animal blood.
By the way Jesus made all foods clean in the New Testament🤦♂🤦♂[H]e who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (Jn 6:54)
Seems Whites interp puts his heterodox Calvinist position in a bit of a pickle w/ many followers leaving, falling away from Christ......but of course they always have the "out" of "they were never true believers in the first place" lol. We are called to participate in this holy faith as partakers of the divine nature, the grace offered in the heavenly manna, the Supper of the Lamb. Unless we eat the flesh of the Son of Man & drink His blood, you have no life in you. To add, of course Jesus words are spirit, His words are also truth, just as this religion is spiritual, but its physical, living, active & powerful. A mere symbol would not bring judgement or grace, hence its literally the body & blood of the Son of God
22:19 Then he took a piece of bread gave thanks to God, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, " This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in memory of me.20
When Jesus said whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life. Who was the first one to literally eat and drink his blood while Jesus was still alive 🤔 🤣 😂 🤣?!?!
If you are asking which Apostle at the last supper was the first to eat the Eucharist I don’t believe any of the Last Supper accounts, Matthew 26:17-29; Mark 14:12-25; Luke 22:7-38; and I Corinthians 11:23-25) are that specific.
IF JESUS WAS SPEAKING METAFORICALLY, NOT LITERALLY JESUS AS THE SON OF GOD COULD NOT HAVE LEFT HIS DISCIPLES GO AWAY WRONG IN THEIR THOUGHTS E WOULD HAVE HAD TO CALL THEM BACK AND TELL THEM HE NEVER MEANT IT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY, HE COULD NOT LET THEM GO BELIEVEING IN A LIE BUT CORRECTED THEIR THOUGHTS, TOM CROWLEY
WHY DOES HE TOTALLY DISREGARD AND FAILS TO MRNTION THE HUNDREDS OFEUCHARIST MIRACLES OVER THE CENTERIES... SOME SCIENCE AND MEDICALLY PROVEN BY INDEPENDENT SCIENCE AND MEDICAL PERSONNEL, HARD PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF THE TRUTH IN IT BEING THE BODY, BLOOD, SOUL , AND DIVINITY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jesus uses parallelism in this discourse to equate believing with eating his flesh. Note the parallel between verse 40 and verse 54: (Jn. 6:40) “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” (Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” According to this parallel, beholding and believing (v.40) are equated with eating and drinking Christ’s flesh (v.54). This is further paralleled by verse 35: (Jn. 6:35) I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. (Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” To “hunger” and “thirst” and parallel to the one who “eats” and “drinks.” But note what Jesus says satisfies our hunger: “He who comes to Me… he who believes in Me.” Jesus isn’t speaking about his literal flesh and blood any more than he is speaking about literal bread (Jn. 6:35) or literal water (Jn. 4:10-14). Indeed, Jesus uses the term sarx for his “body,” rather than the common term sōma (which was the common term used in the Lord’s Supper). Indeed, the “term ‘flesh’ is never used in the NT to refer to the Lord’s Supper.”[4] Hence, this seems “to caution against a sacramental or eucharistic understand of these verses.”[5] This is why Augustine of Hippo wrote regarding this passage: “Believe, and you have eaten.” Jesus works in metaphor’s, analogy and hyperbole. In Mark 8 Jesus uses bread language again anhesd calls out those confused thinking he’s being literal not realizing the spiritual message. Furthermore early church fathers knew NOTHING of transubstantiation. Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 180) stated that the elements do not lose the nature of bread and wine (Against Heresies, 4.18.4-5; 5.2.2). Tertullian (AD 200) said Jesus’ statement was figurative (Against Marcion, 3.19). Clement of Alexandria (AD 200) called the bread and wine symbols of Jesus’ body (The Instructor, I.6). Origen (AD 250) held his typical allegorical and spiritual view when referring to the elements in the Last Supper. Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 340) called the elements the body and blood of Christ, but also referred to them as symbolic of spiritual realities (On the Theology of the Church, 3.2.12). Augustine (AD 350) believed that John 6:53 should be understood spiritually and symbolically-not literalistically (On Christian Doctrine 3.16.2). Gelasius I (5th century pope): “The sacrament which we receive of the body and blood of Christ is a divine thing. Wherefore also by means of it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to be… Thus, as the elements pass into this, that is, the divine substance by the Holy Ghost, and none the less remain in their own proper nature.”
CATHOLIC ANSWERS-JOHN 6:54..WHOSO EATETH MY FLESH, AND DRINKETH MY BLOOD, HATH ETERNAL LIFE; AND I WILL RAISE HIM UP AT THE LAST DAY. "WHOSO EATETH MY FLESH, AND DRINKETH MY BLOOD, HATH ETERNAL LIFE NOW". KARLO, NAME JUST ONE APOSTLE,DISCIPLE OR ANY FOLLOWER OF JESUS WHO LITERALLY ATE JESUS FLESH AND DRANK HIS BLOOD WHILE JESUS WAS STILL ALIVE TO HAVE ETERNAL LIFE?? NO ONE..!! NO ONE LITERALLY ATE JESUS FLESH AND DRANK HIS BLOOD WHILE HE WAS STILL ALIVE..!!JESUS WS SPEAKING SPIRITUALLY..!! THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU,THEY ARE SPIRIT AND THEY ARE LIFE, ETERNAL LIFE. THE EUCHARIST IS NOT CHRIST. JESUS SAID..,"IF ANYONE SAYS, HERE IS THE CHRIST(IN THE EUCHARIST) DO NOT BELIEVE IT"(MATTHEW 24:23).THE EUCHARIST WAS INVENTED BY POWER HUNGRY POPES TO HAVE CONTROL OVER THEIR DECEIVED AND DELUDED FOLLOWERS.
Are you serious? Paul speaks about the Eucharist, that’s what the churches always celebrated. Even early christians believed this and early pagans said this is what early christians did.
@DanielAbdallah Where in the Bible did the apostles ate Jesus flesh and drank his blood while Jesus was still alive.??!! There was no eucharist during the apostles lives..!! There was no Roman catholic church,no priests to turn Jesus into a cookie..!! The Roman Catholic Church was not in existence during the apostles lives..!!
it is also the reason why St. Paul said your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. when you receive Jesus Christ in the flesh, in the eucharist, you receive God Himself. and just as the temple of Jerusalem is kept pure for the Holy Spirit to reside, so must you be holy for God to reside in you.
I’m trying so hard to focus on a life of holiness. So many people don’t understand that we are to live holy lives
@@nathanoppy We’re right there with you brother.
@@nathanoppy
Nathan,
Say this to yourself:
It is not hard to love the God who created me out of love; there's no other like me.
Follow with 1 Our Father, 1 Hail Mary and 1 Glory be.
Not contextually.
1 Corinthians 6:17-18 ESV
But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. [18] Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.
THEN paul speaks without break in relation to SEXUAL sin
1 Corinthians 6:19 ESV
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,
Then he says…
1 Corinthians 6:20 ESV
for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
Abstain from sexual sin. Not fill your belly with Jesus.
@@nathanoppy you struggle because your trying to cooperate to earn. Instead, lean on christ in faith to change. Absorb the gospel and allow change to manifest within you versus trying to change under your own human will.
2 Corinthians 5:21 ESV
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Romans 4:4-5 ESV
Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. [5] And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
Romans 4:8 ESV
blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin."
If you are born of the spirit in regeneration then you are a new creation.
Romans 5:1 ESV
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Condemnation no longer resides on you and your human sin can no longer damn you.
Romans 8:1 ESV
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
I've always wondered what some of the main Protestant objections to John 6 were. This video was perfect to get into that. Thanks Karlo!
so amusing to see Karlo so animated on stage. LOL
i'm so used to seeing him in the CA studio, in a chair and answering queries calmly.
Thank You Brother Karlo as followers of CHRIST march on!! GOD Bless You! Jonathan
My goodness I am such a fan of Karlo Broussard.
Tnx for this great talk. It really helps me a lot in deepening my Catholic faith.
To my Protestant brothers and sisters:
*SUPPOSE* Jesus actually wanted us to eat His flesh and drink His blood, what _exactly_ should He have said?
That is a very great question, that is one I haven't heard used yet in Catholic apologetics what would Jesus truly have to say to get people to believe in the real presence
@@therapper000 (he said it!)
@@jeffscully50613 Suppose this: Jesus would never ask of us to literally do such an insane thing.
Jesus never corrected the Samaritan woman who said “Give me this water so I shall never thirst.” But yet he didn’t mean she would never had to draw water again and drink it. (Compare John 6:35)
Or should we be without understanding like Nicodemus and crawl back into our mothers?
Was it possible for them to eat his flesh and drink his blood THAT day when he spoke it? Or would they have to wait a few years later when he had his last meal with the apostles? Jesus made it clear that eating his flesh is coming to him/following/believing him throughout John 6.
@BatWayne6 you'll find out sooner or later.
@@jeffscully50613nice one Jeff lol
I like the way this chapter is read at Mass on Sundays 17-21 of Ordinary Time in Year B.
Ultimately, the correct interpretation of any Scripture is a matter of authority rather than of the pure application of reason and logic. However, I think it is useful to be able to provide such strong reasons for the Catholic interpretation before moving on to the more fundamental issue of authority. So the point-for-point back-and-forth is not without value!
Can we have more Karlo presentations 😊
Brilliant and compelling. Thanks!
Putting the dots together, it seems that those not accepting the Eucharist are in fact repeating what the disciples had done when they left Jesus. That the Father hasn’t revealed it to them. And that they don’t have the life of Christ within them and will not be resurrected.. It is quite troubling that the same book leads to such divergent conclusions. Thank you for the video.
I've been in the Church for four years now and I'm just scratching the surface. The other day I was struck by how beautiful a prayer the "Glory Be" is.
There's so many layers to the faith and they're missing out. I pray they all convert, especially my family, living and dead.
Very logical arguments!
Thank you bro Karlo. Its a very good presentation on John 6. If i can also shortly share:
I'm always asking most evangelicals, that when Jesus compared in eating his flesh and drinking his blood with his Ascension (But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you?" Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? Jn. 6:61-62).
Does his Ascension, a metaphor which was pertained as symbolical? Or does he literally ascended ?
Well we can't find that Jesus ascend as a dove or butterfly in heaven. BUT HE LITERALLY ASCENDED to HEAVEN.
"When he had said this, as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight."
Acts 1:9 NRSV-CI
* Then most of them will pause ,think & they will change verse or topic.
Magnificent! God Bless
Correction:
Jesus clarifies what he was saying in verse 63 after many of his disciples left him as it is stated in verse 60. Did anyone else catch his incorrect statement at 16:45 of his talk?
The disciples leave in verse 66. Verse 60 speaks of the disciples having an issue with what Christ said.
I take Jesus Christ words as the guaranteed truth! I am not here to judge nor should anyone else judge!
Amen! plus it was fully understood by Gods people that participation in a sacrifice was to eat (partake) in it - just as Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 10:16-18!!!
NOT literally!!
@@joycegreer9391 Exodus 12:1-25 " you must **EAT** the Lamb"..."This law is for you and your descendants **forever** . "...
Mat 5:17 " Do not think that I have come to abolish the law, but to **fulfill** it! "
1 Cor 1-:16-18 " Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a **participation** in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a **participation** in the body of Christ?"
Rev 12:17 - "Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of **her** **offspring** -those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus."
@@joycegreer9391 still trolling Catholics are we Missy
@@andreeattieh2963 Still trolling Protestants are we Sonny.
@@joycegreer9391 protestants troll Catholics and Catholics simply tell Protestants to stop trolling Catholics
You are very judgemental if you think Catholics are not Christians
Jesus said there would be few who found the hard and narrow path to life, and many who would take the broad path to perdition. Jesus also said to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood was to have life. The few remained, the many walked, and we ought not be surprised at it
@@Call_Upon_YAH TL;DR. Even the devil can (and does) quote the Bible. God gave us a Church, and the Church wrote the Bible. Knowing what the Bible means requires the interpretation of the Institution which wrote it. Try again, but briefer next time
@@ArchetypeGotoh The church did not Write the bible they put the bible together
@@zacharyvandress1120 are you trying to imply the Apostolic Writers weren’t part of the Church, the Body of Christ? Of course “the Church” wrote the Bible; it’s members wrote the books, organized the books, rejected the things false or not worth keeping… what’s your point?
@ArchetypeGotoh The Bible is both the old and the New Testament and it was inspired works of individual people.The church put The Bible together it did not write The Bible and it put The Bible together and decided what books would be in The Bible. Individual people at certain times were part of the church but the church in no way wrote scripture. Any Catholic theologian would tell you the same.
My point is the statement you made is not accurate.
@@zacharyvandress1120 technically, if by “the church” you mean “the physical building, then yes, “the Church” didn’t write the Bible; bricks and mortar cannot pick up pens and parchment. Any other application of your statement is so obvious it didn’t need to be said.
The through line of my comments has been that the members of the Church *are* the Church, and the members of the Church wrote the Bible, in exactly the same way as you mean when you say “the Church” “put the Bible together.” If the Church can put the Bible together, the Church can write the Bible. Claiming otherwise is just foolishness. Be consistent with your standards.
the John 6 bread discourse condemns all protestants because they do not follow this ordinance from Jesus
A very clear explanation
Excellent presentation here. Very clear and informative. Thankyou very much for this teaching!,
If I am a true believer in Jesus, would it be really hard and difficult to just believe his words? I find no error in following his words and contemplating those words. Chances are, his words were true.
Simple.
Romans 10:9-10 ESV
because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. [10] For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
Catholic transubstantiation profits nothing but work due outside the blood covering of Christ.
Romans 4:4-5 ESV
Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. [5] And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
Jesus uses parallelism in this discourse to equate believing with eating his flesh. Note the parallel between verse 40 and verse 54:
(Jn. 6:40) “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
(Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
According to this parallel, beholding and believing (v.40) are equated with eating and drinking Christ’s flesh (v.54). This is further paralleled by verse 35:
(Jn. 6:35) I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
(Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
To “hunger” and “thirst” and parallel to the one who “eats” and “drinks.” But note what Jesus says satisfies our hunger: “He who comes to Me… he who believes in Me.” Jesus isn’t speaking about his literal flesh and blood any more than he is speaking about literal bread (Jn. 6:35) or literal water (Jn. 4:10-14). Indeed, Jesus uses the term sarx for his “body,” rather than the common term sōma (which was the common term used in the Lord’s Supper). Indeed, the “term ‘flesh’ is never used in the NT to refer to the Lord’s Supper.”[4] Hence, this seems “to caution against a sacramental or eucharistic understand of these verses.”[5] This is why Augustine of Hippo wrote regarding this passage: “Believe, and you have eaten.”
Jesus works in metaphor’s, analogy and hyperbole. In Mark 8 Jesus uses bread language again anhesd calls out those confused thinking he’s being literal not realizing the spiritual message.
I believe his speaking the truth about the words of Jesus Christ the Lord, Jesus his alive ask him, respect,
And chances are his words are really really true if he says the same thing five times in a row for emphasis
Spot on!!
(Jn. 6:40) “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
(Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
According to this parallel, beholding and believing (v.40) are equated with eating and drinking Christ’s flesh (v.54). This is further paralleled by verse 35:
(Jn. 6:35) I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
(Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
To “hunger” and “thirst” and parallel to the one who “eats” and “drinks.” But note what Jesus says satisfies our hunger: “He who comes to Me… he who believes in Me.” Jesus isn’t speaking about his literal flesh and blood any more than he is speaking about literal bread (Jn. 6:35) or literal water (Jn. 4:10-14). Indeed, Jesus uses the term sarx for his “body,” rather than the common term sōma (which was the common term used in the Lord’s Supper). Indeed, the “term ‘flesh’ is never used in the NT to refer to the Lord’s Supper.”[4] Hence, this seems “to caution against a sacramental or eucharistic understand of these verses.”[5] This is why Augustine of Hippo wrote regarding this passage: “Believe, and you have eaten.”
At the Council of Trent Rome taught her belief was affirmed by “all our forefathers” (Thirteenth Session, Chapter 1, The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. However, this is certainly not the case.
Didache 9.1 - (AD 100) Now, concerning the Eucharist, practice it as follows. " First, concerning the cup: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your son, which you made known to us through Jesus your son, glory to you forever a Next, concerning the broken bread: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you made known to us through Jesus your son, glory to you forever b4 Just as this broken bread was being scattered over the mountains and being brought together it became one; likewise bring together your church from the ends of the earth into your kingdom, so that yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever cs But none shall eat or shall drink from your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; for also concerning this the Lord has said,
"Do give not what is holy to the dogs."
The Didache (AD 100): “On the Lord’s day assemble and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure. If any have a dispute with his fellow, let him not come to the assembly till they be reconciled, that your sacrifice be not polluted. For this is the sacrifice spoken of by the Lord; ‘In every place and at every time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great king, said the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the Gentiles; (Mal. i. 11, 14).”
This doesn’t refer to Jesus’ sacrifice, but to “your sacrifice.” The same Greek word for “sacrifice” (thusia) is used of Jesus’ sacrifice (Heb. 5:1), but it is also used of doing good deeds, praise, and financial giving (Heb. 13:15-16; Phil. 4:18). The same book also refers to the supper as the “cup” and the “bread,” and a means of remembering Jesus’ sacrifice in thanksgiving (Didache, 9).
Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 180) stated that the elements do not lose the nature of bread and wine (Against Heresies, 4.18.4-5; 5.2.2).
Tertullian (AD 200) said Jesus’ statement was figurative (Against Marcion, 3.19).
Clement of Alexandria (AD 200) called the bread and wine symbols of Jesus’ body (The Instructor, I.6).
Origen (AD 250) held his typical allegorical and spiritual view when referring to the elements in the Last Supper.
Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 340) called the elements the body and blood of Christ, but also referred to them as symbolic of spiritual realities (On the Theology of the Church, 3.2.12).
Augustine (AD 350) believed that John 6:53 should be understood spiritually and symbolically-not literalistically (On Christian Doctrine 3.16.2).
Gelasius I (5th century pope): “The sacrament which we receive of the body and blood of Christ is a divine thing. Wherefore also by means of it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to be… Thus, as the elements pass into this, that is, the divine substance by the Holy Ghost, and none the less remain in their own proper nature.”
Transubstantiation was a medieval development versus a patristic origin. Christ is present in the Eucharist, but not in a physical transubstantiated State. Hence the whole point of the verse in question. He is present with us mysteriously and spiritually, and the necessity of the Eucharist is correct in the Roman church in that it must be practiced frequently as a practice of the regenerate believer, rather than as a salvific practice to regenerate the unbeliever.
Excellent
Dr. White (like me) uses the King James Version, but John 6:66 in the KJV starts with "From that time...", which would imply the "and this" temporal sense. I guess Dr. White only likes the KJV when it suits his meaning.
And pay attention to the number 666 🧐
@@cdeep4548 John 6:66's being the verse that talks about people leaving Christ is either perfectly spot on, the greatest coincidence of all time, or some combination of the two.
@@RealSeanithan For real!
@@cdeep4548 Chapter and verse are not part of the original Scriptures. They were added many centuries later to make for easy reference. The divisions can sometimes be misleading and result in interpretive error.
@@michaelmcguire2121 I know. But still pretty crazy.
John is the only evangelist who did not write the story of the institution of the Eucharist, because in the 6th chapter he already told about the Eucharist long enough. Instead, to complete the other evangelists, he talked about the washing of the feet which no other apostle wrote about. Both aspects of priesthood (sanctification and service) are shown.
The story of the institution is clear enough to imagine John 6 is metaphorical.
Also important to remember that John 6 also takes place on Passover. At the beginning of John 6, it says the Passover was at hand when he feeds the 5000. The next day he gives the bread of life discourse.
John 6 was written by John after the heretics began to say that the other gospels didn’t mean the literal flesh and blood of Christ. John wrote his gospel to directly put down the heresy that Jesus was not divine and that the Eucharist was not the real flesh and blood of Christ. This is why he John 1 talks about Jesus’ divinity as well as John 6 literally saying it’s the flesh and blood of Christ. And why he has the verse in there about the disciples being shocked by it … to the point where they left in disgust.
Paul is also clear in his epistles to the Corinthians that it is the body and blood of Christ.
This is why Christian’s believe this. Christ didn’t mince words.
John’s gospel is putting down the heretical teachings that had started in the first few decades by people who were not even taught by Jesus let alone at the last supper.
Your interpretation of it being symbolic is not even in the bible. But that is par for your kind who don’t even have a trace of apostolic succession amongst your clergy. Just common folk who twist the bible into a man made religion.
But he answered and said unto them, "Why do you also transgress *the commandment of God* by your TRADITION?”
{Matthew 15:3}
Yes it is!!
This is why few actually are obedient to God. They ignore what the first Christian’s taught and that the gospel of John was the last gospel written during a time when heresies had already started. This is why his language on the Eucharist and other topics is so literal with what the apostles believed to dispel the heresy new converts and those who were not witnesses had begun to spread: that Jesus was not divine, that Jesus did not rise from the dead, that the Eucharist was not the actual flesh and blood of Jesus
I believe in Real Presence and am a Protestant/Catholic = Anglican. 😊
Isn’t it interesting that Jesus equates not accepting eating and drinking of him as [Leaving him].
This video was awesome and this dude is high energy. Such a tough crowd tho! Lol.
The papacy is a gift from God
God does not gift us blasphemy.
@@joycegreer9391 papacy is not blasphemy it's a gift from God
I've seen plenty of scripture go against Protestantism but none against the teachings of the Catholic church
@@andreeattieh2963 The papacy is most definitely blasphemous. You haven't seen any scripture against Protestant. You obviously can't understand scripture. What you see is against majority of RCC teachings, but you only read with eisegesis from your indoctrination. You are incapable of seeing truth, thinking for yourself, having any critical thinking skills. All your comments prove that. They are all simple and repetitive.
@@joycegreer9391no Eucharist no salvation
@@paulcapaccio9905 Nonsense. Salvation is ONLY belief and faith in Jesus, nothing else. Not sacraments, not some church, not penance, not anything else.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia cautions: “We should not rely too heavily on the literalness of the words ‘This IS my body’ or ‘This IS my blood.’” This authoritative encyclopedia admits that the wording at Matthew 26:26-28 does not prove that the bread and the wine were changed into Jesus’ literal body and blood at the Last Supper!
Jesus was speaking figuratively and he compared himself to bread because through his sacrifice he would impart life to mankind. John 6:35,40 clearly indicates that the eating and drinking would be done by exercising faith in Jesus Christ. 😊
Sooo, everyone for 1521 years before Luther was wrong and you and
Luther are right. Sure.
MATTHEW 16:18...AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD "MY CHURCH"...JESUS SAID "..."MY CHURCH"...IT'S JESUS' CHURCH..!! EPHESIANS 5:23-25...EVEN AS CHRIST IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH:AND HE IS THE SAVIOUR OF THE BODY. THEREFORE AS THE CHURCH IS SUBJECT (SUBMISSIVE) UNTO CHRIST,...EVEN AS CHRIST ALSO LOVED THE CHURCH AND GAVE HIMSELF FOR IT. CLEARLY...CLEARLY IT IS CHRIST CHURCH..!!
@Lupe Lo So according to you St. Paul’s warning on partaking body and blood of Jesus while in Sin is also about faith 😂😂😂😂😂, please just stop misinterpreting the word of Jesus Christ, it will come back to haunt you.
_For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed._
No comparison there.
@@johnosumba1980 Catholicism is ANTI-CHRIST...!
Brilliant❤️🙏😄
“Believe in me, and never hunger”
Also,
“Eat my flesh and drink my blood and have life within you.”
Catholic response: I believe, and so i eat
Protestant response: I believe, and so i refuse to eat
Also- when Jesus breathed on his Apostles, it was to see if they could guess what he had for lunch.
John 6:35, Yeshua said to them,
“I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to Me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in Me will never be thirsty.”
John 6 should not be confused with The Lord’s Supper…
Matthew 26, is in the context of the Passover Seder, which was replaced with Easter, after the Council of Nicea…
Nowhere in Scripture does it teach to stop observing Passover… Jesus observed Passover…
Romans 6:10 For the death He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life He lives, He lives to God.
How can anyone teach that Matthew 26 is = to transubstantiation?
How can anyone teach that there’s any evidence in Scripture of an unbloody sacrifice, performed by priests, on an alter, which involves the actual body of the Son of God, which provides forgiveness of sin, which is worshipped equally to God?
The eating of the unleavened bread, and the drinking of the wine, are clearly explained in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26.
Any teaching that goes away from this teaching, must be rejected…
Everything in the Passover Seder is symbolic, it’s done in remembrance…
Yeshua is the fulfillment of Scripture, not the replacement of Scripture…
People don’t have a right to change the meaning of Scripture, or make tradition equal to it, according to their own choosing…
We eat the unleavened bread, and drink the wine, to remember that Jesus Christ died for our sin, a once for all death.
Great video, as always with Mr Carlo and Catholic answers. But me personally go really tired with the presented here Protestant gymnastics - in a sense how people understand the Bible verses 1500 or 2,000 year after the gospels were written is really irrelevant. The most important is how those words were understood by the Christians lived with and heard Jesus Christ, meaning the apostles and the early church. And there's enough clarification to refute any objections.
so it is based on the text that one goes by.
Amen 🙏
20 Therefore when you come together it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper ...Corinthians 11
VIVA CRISTO REY!!!
👍
👍
Catholic answers- John 6:51..I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: Is Jesus a literal walking real life bread?"If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever.If you were there catholic when Jesus said "If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever". How are you going to literally eat the living bread to have eternal life while Jesus still alive?? Jesus said "if you don't eat my flesh and drink my blood now you don't have life in you. How are you going to literally eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood while he was still alive to have eternal life know??Name just one disciple or
Luke 6:53 Jesus said to them, " I am telling you the truth, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in yourselves. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them to life on the last day. 55 For my flesh is the real food, my blood is the real drink. 56 THOSE WHO EAT MY FLESH AND DRINK MY BLOOD LIVE IN ME, AND I LIVE IN THEM 57 The living Father sent me, and because of him I live also. In the same way whoever eat me will live because of me 58 This, then, is the bread that came down from heaven, it is not like the bread that your ANCESTORS EAT. THEY LATER DIED, BUT THOSE WHO EAT THIS BREAD WILL LIVE FOR EVER, 22:19 Then he took a piece of bread, gave thanks to God broke it, and gave it to them saying " This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in memory of me. " 20-21 But, look! The one who betray me is here at the table with me, the people they don't believe the body and blood of Jesus, they know Jesus from there words, but the heart is far away,
As a recompense Jesus manifested his divinity to his three very faithful and committed apostles in the transfiguration.
John 5:47 But if you do not believe his - Moses - writings, how will you believe my words?
John 12:47-50 And if anyone hears my words and does not observe them, I do not condemn him, for I did not come to condemn the world but to save the world. Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words has something to judge him: the word that I spoke, it will condemn him on the last day, because I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. So what I say, I say as the Father told me.
none of Christ's apostles or disciples ate His flesh or drank His blood. Christ was speaking symbolically/metaphorically, as He often did in His parables. He (in John 6) was speaking about accepting Him spiritually as Lord and Savior.
yeah we know your Claim but this video has so far given more evidence for protestantism than you have
I'm certainly glad James White never translated the Bible. He seems to lean quite heavily on his understanding of Greek to invent up his own ideas of what Scripture says.
Him, 1 person. All the other bible translations many many people, and yet they always fail to properly translate according to James White!
Then of course there is the fact that the Apostles were teaching and not reading. According to the James Whites, the Apostle were incompetent.
It's important to learn how Jesus tought ? and how his Apostle tought why BECAUSE WE WERE NOT THERE IN 2000 YRS AGO SO WE DONT BELIEVE OURSELVES "WE BELIEF ON THEM ON HOW THEY READ BIBLE AND INTERPRATE SYSTEMATICALLY S0 MATERIAL (BIBLE)ARE OUT IT US TO FIND THE TRUTH.
REMEMBER JESUS TOUGHT FROM THE BOOK OF MOSES,PROPHET AND PSALM CONCERN THE THING TO HIMSELF LUKE 24:44-48 ,THEN HIS DISCIPLES(Apostle)...WROTE DOCTRINE STATING FROM MOSES SYSTEMATICALLY LOOK WHAT JOHN WRITE John 1:1 quote from Gen 1:1
So simple speaking Jesus was STUDENT of Moses meaning he quotied from Moses and use the word EAT from Genesis and John wrote it.
Genesis 3:6 KJV
[6] And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did EAT, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did EAT.
Then John document word from Jesus
John 6:53-54 KJV
[53] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye EAT(greek word Phago) the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
[54] Whoso EATETH(greek word Trogo means gnow or chew) my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
USES OF TROGO IN THE BIBLE
Matthew 24:38 KJV
[38] For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating(TROGO) and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
TROGO OR PHOGO are the word Jesus used to quote Moses from book of Genesis 3:6, so Spiritual application of TROGO IS THE FAITH IN JESUS RESURRECTION without even eating literal.
Because Saith Paul STATED clearly in 2Cor, that EATING (TROGO) is like to say NOT BELIEVING where Mosese has showed us Eva EAT the fruit
2 Corinthians 11:3-4 KJV
[3] But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
[4] For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. PAUL EXPLAN GEN 3:6 IN 2COR.
Jesus DID TOUGHT TO EAT (TROGO)HIS FRESH meaning to believe HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION....
Another word John quote from Moses
Genesis 2:8 KJV
[8] And the LORD God planted a GARDEN eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
John 19:41 KJV
[41] Now in the place where he was crucified there was a GARDEN; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
SCRIPTURES POITING TORWAD CHRIST BY FAITH ONLY.
The whole point of John 6 is missed when you assume Jesus was trying to “ease” the understanding for this disciples. Jesus specified in verse 64 that he knew they did not believe from the beginning. They were never really disciples. By alluding to his ascension, he is asking a rhetorical question. “What if you were to see me ascend to where I came from? Would THAT change your hearts?” Just like there were ancestors in the desert who saw God’s miraculous provision for 40 years, the miracle did not change their hearts; and those who did not believe were barred from entering Jerusalem’s gates. We see the same thing in John 6 if the disciples were to see him ascend to heaven. They sought him NOT because they witnessed the miracles, but because they only cared about its provision. So if they never believed from the beginning, what were they not believing in? Eating his flesh? That’s impossible because the idea had never crossed their minds yet.
John 6 exposes our inability to follow Christ based on our own terms (fleshly motives). Motives that satisfy the flesh yield no everlasting benefit because Jesus’ pursuit is countercultural and focused on eternal life. We live by him, as our bodies live by our food. To “come” is to eat, and “believe” is to drink - Because he lives, so shall those who believe on him. Therefore, do not work for the food that perishes. Our motive for following Christ must come from hearing and learning from the Father, and those whom the Father draws are then given to Christ, and believe on him. If we seek Jesus for the wrong reasons, we will not find what we are looking for. Therefore, look to his sacrifice and believe in his saving work if you are hungry for the bread of life. The Jews’ ancestors in the desert relied on physical manna for sustenance, and yet died. Jesus is stating he is different* in substance* and in provision*, and is everlasting bread that “endures” to eternal life.
The Jews perceived spiritual things in a carnal sense. This is a recurring theme throughout John as we see in the other “I Am’s”.
Their temper inclined them to conceal any other sense they had of it, and to represent what our Saviour said as exceedingly absurd. They did not yet understand that by “giving”, Jesus was referring to himself being crucified. Their concept of a dying messiah was so foreign to their original plans to make him King by force in John 6. Also notice the tense of Jesus’ verb usage in verse 54. “Eats” and “drinks” are in the present tense active. A more correct way to read it is whoever “is eating” and “is drinking”… Jesus is not speaking of a periodic meal, but rather a perpetual feeding and drinking that never ceases.
The disciples heard what the Jews heard. We can infer most of the Jews had already left at this point, because Jesus shifted his conversational direction to the disciples. The disciples said “this is a hard saying. Who can Agree”… ? A stumbling block. “Do you stumble at this?” If this hinders your faith, what if you were to see the son of man glorified? He is asking rhetorically if their hearts would change if they saw him ascend to heaven. He calls them out and says they were never believers to begin with. Their Fathers witnessed miraculous bread come down from heaven for 40 years in the desert, yet they still did not believe. These false disciples would then witness Jesus’s ascension and be totally unphased from God’s glory, just like their fathers who ate manna and died. The disciples left because Jesus totally stripped away their leverage for following him. There is nothing they could have said in order to use him to further benefit from his miracles.
He took away the Jews’ false motive by shocking them with what appeared to be a strange idea of eating flesh. He took away the disciples false motive by proving they were never believers to begin with. A classic case of living by bread alone!
The best way to get rid of false disciples and to prevent creating them, is to dismantle their motives. Witnessing a miracle alone will not get them to hear the Father. That is the entire message of John 6! It has nothing to do with the Lords supper (which was over a year later). In face, Jesus likens himself to manna, not the Passover matzoh. Totally different connotation.
Ye are saved by Grace through Faith, not of your works " The Emphasis is on Grace not Faith, The Grace comes through the Communion received as a Mother that feeds her Baby, taken directly to the mouth, for hands denote wages of one's work
Nevertheless Faith has its works within for Faith without works is dead
Render unto God what is to God FAITH, without which it is not possible to please God but surely not a Leavened/Corrupted Faith as in Protestantism's Faith Only
What specifically Consistite the Faith?
Answer : THE TWO COMMANDMENTS OF LOVE, denoted by the Bronze image of St Peter in Peters Basilica, The Two Commandments of Love that hang in the two keys of heaven The Universal Doctrine of the Catholic Faith, consistent with the Sacred Heart of Jesus -- The Two Commandments of Love that Burns in his Heart God is Love & Love has its works,
In the two Commandments hang all of the Law & Prophets
Revelations The Elect who keep the Commanments & have his testimony,
Jesus's words ARE Spiritual in John 6, but Spiritual does NOT mean "symbolic".
👍Truly. God is a spirit not a symbol.
It sure is not actual flesh and blood.
@@joycegreer9391 Of course not, because it's spiritual. But it is still Jesus's flesh and blood.
@@tabandken8562 It is representative of His flesh and blood in remembrance of His sacrifice.
@@joycegreer9391 That's not what Jesus said. He said...
John 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
And after the Jews complained...
53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.
Then in Matthew-Luke at the Last Supper Jesus held up bread and said, "this IS my body". He did not say, "this represents my body".
That is Catholism 100%. That is also the reason the Jews rejected Jesus. It was a language too hard to understand. Jesus is the Eucharist! He is Holy! He is King!
So enlightening and eye opening. Pure revelation from above. ""Flesh and blood did not reveal that to you but my Father who is in heaven." The Jews had difficulty with drinking the blood of Jesus because the law forbade to drink blood as the "life is in the blood;" they probably reasoned that this would have caused them to blatantly break the law. Their forefathers had eaten mana in the wilderness, the bread that came down from heaven every morning and did not live forever but died and yet if they ate the true bread from heaven, the body of Christ they would live forever. By the way, even the New Testament forbids Christians to drink animal blood.
By the way Jesus made all foods clean in the New Testament🤦♂🤦♂[H]e who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (Jn 6:54)
Seems Whites interp puts his heterodox Calvinist position in a bit of a pickle w/ many followers leaving, falling away from Christ......but of course they always have the "out" of "they were never true believers in the first place" lol. We are called to participate in this holy faith as partakers of the divine nature, the grace offered in the heavenly manna, the Supper of the Lamb. Unless we eat the flesh of the Son of Man & drink His blood, you have no life in you. To add, of course Jesus words are spirit, His words are also truth, just as this religion is spiritual, but its physical, living, active & powerful. A mere symbol would not bring judgement or grace, hence its literally the body & blood of the Son of God
22:19 Then he took a piece of bread gave thanks to God, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, " This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in memory of me.20
When Jesus said whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life. Who was the first one to literally eat and drink his blood while Jesus was still alive 🤔 🤣 😂 🤣?!?!
If you are asking which Apostle at the last supper was the first to eat the Eucharist I don’t believe any of the Last Supper accounts, Matthew 26:17-29; Mark 14:12-25; Luke 22:7-38; and I Corinthians 11:23-25) are that specific.
STAY AWAY FROM THE UNBIBLICAL AND PAGAN EUCHARIST. THE EUCHARIST IS A FALSE CHRIST! DO NOT BELIEVE IT!
@@lupelo8819 Well, since you said it in all caps ... you must be right. Well argued, brother.
Catholic heresy begins and ends with Mary.
I wonder what Steven Nemes would say to this...
He will probably continue to refute this teaching and continue to harden his heart. I pray I’m wrong.
33:30
Yes, they are wrong
IF JESUS WAS SPEAKING METAFORICALLY, NOT LITERALLY JESUS AS THE SON OF GOD COULD NOT HAVE LEFT HIS DISCIPLES GO AWAY WRONG IN THEIR THOUGHTS E WOULD HAVE HAD TO CALL THEM BACK AND TELL THEM HE NEVER MEANT IT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY, HE COULD NOT LET THEM GO BELIEVEING IN A LIE BUT CORRECTED THEIR THOUGHTS, TOM CROWLEY
Not sure but I know John 5 is about the Motley Crue.
Both John 5 and Motley Crue are, among their many other grave public sins, terrible blasphemers. I pray that they repent while they yet have the time.
@@michaelmcguire2121 shout at the devil
"Wilde Side" is utterly blasphemous, so too is the name John 5 taken by someone who is not seeking Christ.
WHY DOES HE TOTALLY DISREGARD AND FAILS TO MRNTION THE HUNDREDS OFEUCHARIST MIRACLES OVER THE CENTERIES... SOME SCIENCE AND MEDICALLY PROVEN BY INDEPENDENT SCIENCE AND MEDICAL PERSONNEL, HARD PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF THE TRUTH IN IT BEING THE BODY, BLOOD, SOUL , AND DIVINITY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jesus uses parallelism in this discourse to equate believing with eating his flesh. Note the parallel between verse 40 and verse 54:
(Jn. 6:40) “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
(Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
According to this parallel, beholding and believing (v.40) are equated with eating and drinking Christ’s flesh (v.54). This is further paralleled by verse 35:
(Jn. 6:35) I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
(Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
To “hunger” and “thirst” and parallel to the one who “eats” and “drinks.” But note what Jesus says satisfies our hunger: “He who comes to Me… he who believes in Me.” Jesus isn’t speaking about his literal flesh and blood any more than he is speaking about literal bread (Jn. 6:35) or literal water (Jn. 4:10-14). Indeed, Jesus uses the term sarx for his “body,” rather than the common term sōma (which was the common term used in the Lord’s Supper). Indeed, the “term ‘flesh’ is never used in the NT to refer to the Lord’s Supper.”[4] Hence, this seems “to caution against a sacramental or eucharistic understand of these verses.”[5] This is why Augustine of Hippo wrote regarding this passage: “Believe, and you have eaten.”
Jesus works in metaphor’s, analogy and hyperbole. In Mark 8 Jesus uses bread language again anhesd calls out those confused thinking he’s being literal not realizing the spiritual message.
Furthermore early church fathers knew NOTHING of transubstantiation.
Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 180) stated that the elements do not lose the nature of bread and wine (Against Heresies, 4.18.4-5; 5.2.2).
Tertullian (AD 200) said Jesus’ statement was figurative (Against Marcion, 3.19).
Clement of Alexandria (AD 200) called the bread and wine symbols of Jesus’ body (The Instructor, I.6).
Origen (AD 250) held his typical allegorical and spiritual view when referring to the elements in the Last Supper.
Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 340) called the elements the body and blood of Christ, but also referred to them as symbolic of spiritual realities (On the Theology of the Church, 3.2.12).
Augustine (AD 350) believed that John 6:53 should be understood spiritually and symbolically-not literalistically (On Christian Doctrine 3.16.2).
Gelasius I (5th century pope): “The sacrament which we receive of the body and blood of Christ is a divine thing. Wherefore also by means of it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to be… Thus, as the elements pass into this, that is, the divine substance by the Holy Ghost, and none the less remain in their own proper nature.”
Amen
CATHOLIC ANSWERS-JOHN 6:54..WHOSO EATETH MY FLESH, AND DRINKETH MY BLOOD, HATH ETERNAL LIFE; AND I WILL RAISE HIM UP AT THE LAST DAY. "WHOSO EATETH MY FLESH, AND DRINKETH MY BLOOD, HATH ETERNAL LIFE NOW". KARLO, NAME JUST ONE APOSTLE,DISCIPLE OR ANY FOLLOWER OF JESUS WHO LITERALLY ATE JESUS FLESH AND DRANK HIS BLOOD WHILE JESUS WAS STILL ALIVE TO HAVE ETERNAL LIFE?? NO ONE..!! NO ONE LITERALLY ATE JESUS FLESH AND DRANK HIS BLOOD WHILE HE WAS STILL ALIVE..!!JESUS WS SPEAKING SPIRITUALLY..!! THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU,THEY ARE SPIRIT AND THEY ARE LIFE, ETERNAL LIFE. THE EUCHARIST IS NOT CHRIST. JESUS SAID..,"IF ANYONE SAYS, HERE IS THE CHRIST(IN THE EUCHARIST) DO NOT BELIEVE IT"(MATTHEW 24:23).THE EUCHARIST WAS INVENTED BY POWER HUNGRY POPES TO HAVE CONTROL OVER THEIR DECEIVED AND DELUDED FOLLOWERS.
Please stop misinterpreting Jesus teachings.
Are you serious? Paul speaks about the Eucharist, that’s what the churches always celebrated. Even early christians believed this and early pagans said this is what early christians did.
@@johnosumba1980 READ THE BIBLE..!
@DanielAbdallah Where in the Bible did the apostles ate Jesus flesh and drank his blood while Jesus was still alive.??!! There was no eucharist during the apostles lives..!! There was no Roman catholic church,no priests to turn Jesus into a cookie..!! The Roman Catholic Church was not in existence during the apostles lives..!!
@DanielAbdallah THE PAGANS ARE THE ONES INVENTED THE EUCHARIST..!