THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST.

[wakeup]

WHAT IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST?
JOHN6:54 WHOSO EATETH MY FLESH AND DRINKETH MY
BLOOD HATH ETERNAL LIFE AND I WILL RAISE HIM UP AT
THE LAST DAY.
55. FOR MY FLESH IS MEAT INDEED AND MY BLOOD IS DRINK
INDEED
56. HE THAT EATETH MY FLESH AND DRINKETH MY BLOOD
DWELLETH AND I IN HIM.
57. AS THE LIVING FATHER HAT SENT ME AND I LIVE BY THE FATHER SO HE THAT EATETH ME EVEN HE SHALL LIVE BY ME.
THIS IS THAT BREAD THAT CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN NOT
AS YOUR FATHERS DID EAT MANNA AND ARE DEAD :HE THAT EATETH OF THIS BREAD SHALL LIVE FOREVER.
QUESTION, WHY MUST WE AET HIS FLESH AND DRINK HIS BLOOD?ARE WE CANNIBALS?
JESUS IS THE WORD OF GOD ( THE WORD IS SPIRIT ).
SO WE MUST FILL OURSELVES WITH THE WORD OF GOD TO
HAVE ETERNAL LIFE. WE NEED TO SEEK KNOWLEDGE
TO BE ABLE TO WITHSTAND TEMPTATION AND THE GREAT
DELUSION TO COME VERY SOON. JESUS ALSO SAID IN VERSE 63.
----THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU ,THEY ARE SPIRIT AND
THEY ARE LIFE.

WAKEUP.

 

[trust_in_the_name]

WHAT IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST?
JOHN6:54 WHOSO EATETH MY FLESH AND DRINKETH MY
BLOOD HATH ETERNAL LIFE AND I WILL RAISE HIM UP AT
THE LAST DAY.
55. FOR MY FLESH IS MEAT INDEED AND MY BLOOD IS DRINK
INDEED
56. HE THAT EATETH MY FLESH AND DRINKETH MY BLOOD
DWELLETH AND I IN HIM.
57. AS THE LIVING FATHER HAT SENT ME AND I LIVE BY THE FATHER SO HE THAT EATETH ME EVEN HE SHALL LIVE BY ME.
THIS IS THAT BREAD THAT CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN NOT
AS YOUR FATHERS DID EAT MANNA AND ARE DEAD :HE THAT EATETH OF THIS BREAD SHALL LIVE FOREVER.
QUESTION, WHY MUST WE AET HIS FLESH AND DRINK HIS BLOOD?ARE WE CANNIBALS?
JESUS IS THE WORD OF GOD ( THE WORD IS SPIRIT ).
SO WE MUST FILL OURSELVES WITH THE WORD OF GOD TO
HAVE ETERNAL LIFE. WE NEED TO SEEK KNOWLEDGE
TO BE ABLE TO WITHSTAND TEMPTATION AND THE GREAT
DELUSION TO COME VERY SOON. JESUS ALSO SAID IN VERSE 63.
----THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU ,THEY ARE SPIRIT AND
THEY ARE LIFE.

WAKEUP.

Jesus said the bread and wine are for remembrance. As it says here,

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:63)

 

[wakeup]

Jesus said the bread and wine are for remembrance. As it says here,

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:63)

SO EAT THE WORDS ( THE SPIRIT ) FOR IT TS LIFE.

 

[dscherck]

Jesus said the bread and wine are for remembrance. As it says here,

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:63)

You're not quite understanding what He's saying there. He's telling you that you won't be able to accept His hard teaching unless you have the Holy Spirit helping you. IE, you'll reject the idea that He offers His literal flesh and blood to us to eat and drink. Indeed, many of His followers, despite having seen many miracles in person performed by Him left Him at this point. They couldn't accept His words that they would eat His Flesh, and His Blood.

 

[trust_in_the_name]

You're not quite understanding what He's saying there. He's telling you that you won't be able to accept His hard teaching unless you have the Holy Spirit helping you. IE, you'll reject the idea that He offers His literal flesh and blood to us to eat and drink. Indeed, many of His followers, despite having seen many miracles in person performed by Him left Him at this point. They couldn't accept His words that they would eat His Flesh, and His Blood.

53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven--not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever." 59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum. 60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?" 61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:53-63)

Speaking of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, He said that those who do so have eternal life. Many of His disciples asked for understanding. He answered them that it is the Spirit who gives life, that the flesh profits nothing, and that the words that He spoke to them are spirit and life.

So, eating His flesh and drinking His blood gives eternal life, but it is the Spirit who gives life, and both of these, the spirit and life, are His words. This means that eating His flesh and drinking His blood are Spirit, not flesh, for the flesh profits nothing. And since eating His flesh and drinking His blood are spirit and life, they are also His words.

The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, . . . (CCC, p. 344, #1366)

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the alter of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner." (CCC, p. 344, #1367)
​

26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people's, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. (Hebrews 7:26-27)

25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another-- 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. (Hebrew 9:25-28)

11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. (Hebrews 10:11-14)

Although the word of God is the literal truth, there are times when it does use symbolism, and we can recognize them because they are specifically identified, as for example above in John 6, and here:

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes. (1 Corinthians 11:23-26)

It says He took bread and broke it. He took the cup, and said to drink it in remembrance of Him. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes. It clearly distinguishes, many times over, between the bread and the cup, and the Lord Himself, and says it is for remembrance, not substantial presence.

 

[dscherck]

You point out that the flesh means nothing and the spirit is everything. Yet right before that we have Our Lord Himself telling us that unless we eat His Flesh, we will have no life in us. So apparently it makes sense to you that Our Lord tells us that we need to eat His flesh, and that in the very next sentence He tells you that it means nothing?

There are indeed many times when Our Lord is symbolic, and it's quite clear from the context as well as from the actual text of the Greek texts that this is not one of those instances.

Matt. 16:12 - in this verse, Jesus explains His metaphorical use of the term "bread." In John 6, He eliminates any metaphorical possibilities.

John 6:4 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.

John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.

John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this "new" bread which must be consumed.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.

John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of "spirit versus flesh" to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still "in the flesh."

John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic." As we have seen, the use of "spirit" relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.

John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn't Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn't Jesus say, "Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!"? Because they understood correctly.

Mark 4:34 - Jesus always explained to His disciples the real meanings of His teachings. He never would have let them go away with a false impression, most especially in regard to a question about eternal salvation.

John 6:37 - Jesus says He would not drive those away from Him. They understood Him correctly but would not believe.

John 3:5,11; Matt. 16:11-12 - here are some examples of Jesus correcting wrong impressions of His teaching. In the Eucharistic discourse, Jesus does not correct the scandalized disciples.

John 6:64,70 - Jesus ties the disbelief in the Real Presence of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist to Judas' betrayal. Those who don't believe in this miracle betray Him.

Psalm 27:2; Isa. 9:20; 49:26; Mic. 3:3; 2 Sam. 23:17; Rev. 16:6; 17:6, 16 - to further dispense with the Protestant claim that Jesus was only speaking symbolically, these verses demonstrate that symbolically eating body and blood is always used in a negative context of a physical assault. It always means “destroying an enemy,” not becoming intimately close with him. Thus, if Jesus were speaking symbolically in John 6:51-58, He would be saying to us, "He who reviles or assaults me has eternal life." This, of course, is absurd.

John 10:7 - Protestants point out that Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, "I am the door." But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically.

John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, "I am the vine." Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine. In John 6, Jesus' disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18 – Jesus says He will not drink of the “fruit of the vine” until He drinks it new in the kingdom. Some Protestants try to use this verse (because Jesus said “fruit of the vine”) to prove the wine cannot be His blood. But the Greek word for fruit is “genneema” which literally means “that which is generated from the vine.” In John 15:1,5 Jesus says “I am the vine.” So “fruit of the vine” can also mean Jesus’ blood. In 1 Cor. 11:26-27, Paul also used “bread” and “the body of the Lord” interchangeably in the same sentence. Also, see Matt. 3:7;12:34;23:33 for examples were “genneema” means “birth” or “generation.”

Rom. 14:14-18; 1 Cor. 8:1-13; 1 Tim. 4:3 – Protestants often argue that drinking blood and eating certain sacrificed meats were prohibited in the New Testament, so Jesus would have never commanded us to consume His body and blood. But these verses prove them wrong, showing that Paul taught all foods, even meat offered to idols, strangled, or with blood, could be consumed by the Christian if it didn’t bother the brother’s conscience and were consumed with thanksgiving to God.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says we must become like children, or we will not enter the kingdom of God. We must believe Jesus' words with child-like faith. Because Jesus says this bread is His flesh, we believe by faith, even though it surpasses our understanding.

Luke 1:37 - with God, nothing is impossible. If we can believe in the incredible reality of the Incarnation, we can certainly believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. God coming to us in elements He created is an extension of the awesome mystery of the Incarnation.

 

[Consumed]

John 1:14And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

 

[mpaper345]

The Bible says that Jesus gave us His human body as a sacrifice once for all.

By saying that the wine and bread is the actual blood and body of Jesus is a mini sacrifice which there was only one sacrifice.

Jesus said do it in remembrance of Him.

 

[dscherck]

The Bible says that Jesus gave us His human body as a sacrifice once for all.

By saying that the wine and bread is the actual blood and body of Jesus is a mini sacrifice which there was only one sacrifice.

Jesus said do it in remembrance of Him.

Incorrect, there is one Sacrifice. The Eucharist isn't a mini sacrifice, it is the same Sacrifice made present today. Christ's sacrifice is perpetual and exists both in time (about 33AD on the Cross in Calvary) and outside of time as an unending perpetual sacrifice made present to us through the Eucharist. When we partake of the Eucharist, the veil is torn between us and we are now able to participate in the same Sacrifice by grace of Our Lord.

 

[wakeup]

Jesus said the bread and wine are for remembrance. As it says here,

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:63)

yes, feed on his flesh(the word of god). for it only can give life.
wakeup.

 

[wakeup]

You point out that the flesh means nothing and the spirit is everything. Yet right before that we have Our Lord Himself telling us that unless we eat His Flesh, we will have no life in us. So apparently it makes sense to you that Our Lord tells us that we need to eat His flesh, and that in the very next sentence He tells you that it means nothing?

There are indeed many times when Our Lord is symbolic, and it's quite clear from the context as well as from the actual text of the Greek texts that this is not one of those instances.

Matt. 16:12 - in this verse, Jesus explains His metaphorical use of the term "bread." In John 6, He eliminates any metaphorical possibilities.

John 6:4 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.

John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.

John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this "new" bread which must be consumed.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.

John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of "spirit versus flesh" to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still "in the flesh."

John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic." As we have seen, the use of "spirit" relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.

John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn't Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn't Jesus say, "Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!"? Because they understood correctly.

Mark 4:34 - Jesus always explained to His disciples the real meanings of His teachings. He never would have let them go away with a false impression, most especially in regard to a question about eternal salvation.

John 6:37 - Jesus says He would not drive those away from Him. They understood Him correctly but would not believe.

John 3:5,11; Matt. 16:11-12 - here are some examples of Jesus correcting wrong impressions of His teaching. In the Eucharistic discourse, Jesus does not correct the scandalized disciples.

John 6:64,70 - Jesus ties the disbelief in the Real Presence of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist to Judas' betrayal. Those who don't believe in this miracle betray Him.

Psalm 27:2; Isa. 9:20; 49:26; Mic. 3:3; 2 Sam. 23:17; Rev. 16:6; 17:6, 16 - to further dispense with the Protestant claim that Jesus was only speaking symbolically, these verses demonstrate that symbolically eating body and blood is always used in a negative context of a physical assault. It always means “destroying an enemy,” not becoming intimately close with him. Thus, if Jesus were speaking symbolically in John 6:51-58, He would be saying to us, "He who reviles or assaults me has eternal life." This, of course, is absurd.

John 10:7 - Protestants point out that Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, "I am the door." But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically.

John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, "I am the vine." Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine. In John 6, Jesus' disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18 – Jesus says He will not drink of the “fruit of the vine” until He drinks it new in the kingdom. Some Protestants try to use this verse (because Jesus said “fruit of the vine”) to prove the wine cannot be His blood. But the Greek word for fruit is “genneema” which literally means “that which is generated from the vine.” In John 15:1,5 Jesus says “I am the vine.” So “fruit of the vine” can also mean Jesus’ blood. In 1 Cor. 11:26-27, Paul also used “bread” and “the body of the Lord” interchangeably in the same sentence. Also, see Matt. 3:7;12:34;23:33 for examples were “genneema” means “birth” or “generation.”

Rom. 14:14-18; 1 Cor. 8:1-13; 1 Tim. 4:3 – Protestants often argue that drinking blood and eating certain sacrificed meats were prohibited in the New Testament, so Jesus would have never commanded us to consume His body and blood. But these verses prove them wrong, showing that Paul taught all foods, even meat offered to idols, strangled, or with blood, could be consumed by the Christian if it didn’t bother the brother’s conscience and were consumed with thanksgiving to God.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says we must become like children, or we will not enter the kingdom of God. We must believe Jesus' words with child-like faith. Because Jesus says this bread is His flesh, we believe by faith, even though it surpasses our understanding.

Luke 1:37 - with God, nothing is impossible. If we can believe in the incredible reality of the Incarnation, we can certainly believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. God coming to us in elements He created is an extension of the awesome mystery of the Incarnation.

do we have to go trough al this just to uderstand jesus words??
if the holy spirit does not reveal no man can understand,not even
a days lecture .
wakeup.

 

[wakeup]

Jesus said the bread and wine are for remembrance. As it says here,

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:63)

YES SO FEED ON THE WORD SO YOU HAVE LIFE.
THE BREAD AND WINE IS JUST A SYMBOL AND A REMINDER
THE BREAD AND WINE DOES NOT GIVE LIVE NO MATTER HOW
MANY LOAFS YOU EAT AND HOW MANY GALLONS YOU DRINK.
WAKEUP.

 

[wakeup]

Jesus said the bread and wine are for remembrance. As it says here,

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:63)

DONT EAT THE WORD OF MEN BUT THE WORD OF GOD.
MEN DIE, AND MENS WORD WILL DIE ALSO.
GODS WORD WILL REMAIN FOR EVER. TAKE YOUR PICK.

 

[dscherck]

do we have to go trough al this just to uderstand jesus words??
if the holy spirit does not reveal no man can understand,not even
a days lecture .
wakeup.

His words are quite clear on this matter. It's a tradition of men that makes it into something it is not. He is explicitly clear that we must literally, not figuratively, eat His Flesh and His Blood. It is a recent innovation in Christian thought that the words He speaks here are figurative/symbolic.

 

[dmdave17]

His words are quite clear on this matter. It's a tradition of men that makes it into something it is not. He is explicitly clear that we must literally, not figuratively, eat His Flesh and His Blood. It is a recent innovation in Christian thought that the words He speaks here are figurative/symbolic.

It appears, then, that you believe in the concept of transubstantiation. "Transubstantiation is the teaching that during the Mass, at the consecration in the Lord's Supper (Communion), the elements of the Eucharist, bread and wine, are transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus and that they are no longer bread and wine, but only retain their appearance of bread and wine." (emphasis added)
A Roman Catholic reference describes it as follows. In Holy Communion, we are eating the True Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, without which "you shall not have life in you" (John 6:53).


On the other hand, 1 Corinthians 11:24-26 seems to imply that the sacrament is symbolic. "and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “'This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."


I believe that this in an issue that may never be resolved until the day that we can ask Christ, himself, for the true interpretation. More important though, in my opinion, is the part where we are to "get right" with God before partaking of the sacrament. In First Corinthians, Paul writes "So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep."
(v.27-30)

 

[SonOfAdam]

Eat your god and live... um... No.

Mother worship, eating of one's god, idol worship, praying to the dead... that's all the same as babalonian paganism. There is a reason the Pope and his close followers wear a hat that exactly depicts the head of the old fish god Dagon.
See for yourself from Nimrod's drawings. It is from Nimrod that much of roman tradition comes from.

http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/890/fishead.jpg
"Here we see carvings and diagrams of Dagon priests and their fish head hats along side the Pope with his similar fish head hat holding the crooked cross of Mithra. The carving on the left shows the Dagon priests sprinkling holy water."

 

[SantoSubito]

Eat your god and live... um... No.

Mother worship, eating of one's god, idol worship, praying to the dead... that's all the same as babalonian paganism. There is a reason the Pope and his close followers wear a hat that exactly depicts the head of the old fish god Dagon.
See for yourself from Nimrod's drawings. It is from Nimrod that much of roman tradition comes from.

http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/890/fishead.jpg
"Here we see carvings and diagrams of Dagon priests and their fish head hats along side the Pope with his similar fish head hat holding the crooked cross of Mithra. The carving on the left shows the Dagon priests sprinkling holy water."

So it seems we still have people among us who would walk away when Christ said:

52If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

53The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

54Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

55He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

57He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

58As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. John 6: 53-58 Douay Rheims.

As for the far fetched and conspiracy theory pagan connection. Been there saw that, and have yet to be convinced.

 

[Ash_JFF]

Incorrect, there is one Sacrifice. The Eucharist isn't a mini sacrifice, it is the same Sacrifice made present today. Christ's sacrifice is perpetual and exists both in time (about 33AD on the Cross in Calvary) and outside of time as an unending perpetual sacrifice made present to us through the Eucharist. When we partake of the Eucharist, the veil is torn between us and we are now able to participate in the same Sacrifice by grace of Our Lord.

With respect, you're belief on the eucharist is not biblical. The veil was torn at the time of Jesus death on the cross only thus signifying that there is no longer a separation between God and us. We are able to be saved now by the grace of God through Jesus.

There is only one sacrifice (Hebrews 9:27-28, 10:14) and the implications of that sacrifice extends into eternity past and eternity future from that moment on the cross.

The eucharist does NOTHING to tear any veil between us and God. ONLY Jesus did that. The eucharist does not make Jesus' sacrifice "present today". Jesus' sacrifice is the ONLY thing that can save us. There is nothing else needed for that sacrifice to be "present today" for us.

People can take the eucharist all they want to but that will do nothing to gain salvation. People can still be unbelievers when taking it. Communion has become such a tradition that ANYONE can take it whether saved or unsaved, however only to the saved does it actually mean something. It brings into remembrance of what Jesus did on the cross.

Tell me, if a person never has taken the eucharist, are they saved? If anyone believes that salvation is ALSO based on the eucharist then they are very wrong!

Breaking bread and drinking of the wine is in remembrance of what Jesus did on the cross. The actual bread and wine does not save us just as baptism does not save us. It is by the grace of God only through Jesus. Nothing else is needed and it is our ability to believe that are not.

 

[wakeup]

His words are quite clear on this matter. It's a tradition of men that makes it into something it is not. He is explicitly clear that we must literally, not figuratively, eat His Flesh and His Blood. It is a recent innovation in Christian thought that the words He speaks here are figurative/symbolic.

WHAT HE S SAYING IS TO FEED ON HIS WORD.FOR HIS WORD IS SPIRIT.

 

[zone]

With respect, you're belief on the eucharist is not biblical. The veil was torn at the time of Jesus death on the cross only thus signifying that there is no longer a separation between God and us. We are able to be saved now by the grace of God through Jesus.

There is only one sacrifice (Hebrews 9:27-28, 10:14) and the implications of that sacrifice extends into eternity past and eternity future from that moment on the cross.

The eucharist does NOTHING to tear any veil between us and God. ONLY Jesus did that. The eucharist does not make Jesus' sacrifice "present today". Jesus' sacrifice is the ONLY thing that can save us. There is nothing else needed for that sacrifice to be "present today" for us.

People can take the eucharist all they want to but that will do nothing to gain salvation. People can still be unbelievers when taking it. Communion has become such a tradition that ANYONE can take it whether saved or unsaved, however only to the saved does it actually mean something. It brings into remembrance of what Jesus did on the cross.

Tell me, if a person never has taken the eucharist, are they saved? If anyone believes that salvation is ALSO based on the eucharist then they are very wrong!

Breaking bread and drinking of the wine is in remembrance of what Jesus did on the cross. The actual bread and wine does not save us just as baptism does not save us. It is by the grace of God only through Jesus. Nothing else is needed and it is our ability to believe that are not.

another good post ash