Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Is John 6 About The Eucharist?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 янв 2018
- Roman Catholicism teaches that Jesus taught transubstantiation in this chapter, but a fair reading of the text reveals otherwise.
All production and credit belongs to Alpha and Omega Ministries®.
If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/
Thank you for sharing the results of your careful investigation on this passage Dr. White! It is only now that this video was recommended to me, but it will help me in regards to a dear friend I have. God bless you and your ministry!
A clear and consistent exegesis. Thank you, Dr. White.
An exegesis which no early Christian believed.
The more I read John 6, when the Jews ask “how can this man give himself to eat?” It almost seems like a rhetorical insult rather than a question. No pharisee would treat that as a sincere question wanting an honest answer, but rather they were trying to manipulate Jesus and insult him by using his own words against him.
You partake of the body and blood of Jesus by abiding in Christ and believing!! This was just revealed to me the other day when I read the entirety Of John 6. A lot of context is left out by the Roman Catholic Church. Including the context that he just fed 5000 people and they were looking for him and also tried to take him by force to make him their king so he could make them bread all the time! He even confronts them on this fact as soon as they find him in John chapter 6. Then he tells them they don't need that bread, they need bread from heaven etc. They keep comparing it to physical bread that they can eat and he keeps correcting them. There is a reason the Eucharist being taught now is not the same as it was taught in the 1st century. The transubstantiation that catholics teach is very late in the church history. 1100 years late. " Do not let a friar into your wine cellar, For he will say a blessing and turn the contents into blood" --John Wycliffe
Also the fact that Jesus DID NOT speak these words AT The Last Supper. He could have said the same exact same thing when He was with His disciples instructing them to remember him through bread & cup. Wouldn’t this have been THE MOMENT to tell them this? Remember he is now speaking PLAINLY to His disciples at this point but FAILS to say: “when you take this bread & bless it this becomes my flesh. When you take this cup & bless it this becomes my blood. Eat my flesh & drink my blood when you come together.” This would have settled it once for all. But these words were never spoken by our Lord.
Vs 54, "Whoever eats My flesh, and drinks My blood, has eternal life; and I will
raise him up on the last day." Did He say to eat the symbol of His flesh?
Vs 55, Jesus said, "For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed."
Vs 56, Jesus said, "He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood dwells in Me, and I in him."
Did He say, 'He that eats a symbol of My flesh...'. How can a mere symbol fulfill this promise?
Does only a symbol of Christ dwell in us? I thought GOD Himself dwelt within us, 1John 4:12-13.
Vs 59, This verse shows that Jesus taught this discourse to all the people.
Vs 60,They doubt a third time when many disciples said, "This is a hard saying, who can hear it"?
The Jews were instilled by many Old Testament verses, admonishing them not to consume blood.
See Deut 12:23, Lev 17:11and 14. They must have thought this was something akin to cannibalism.
Is this what you think too?
At any point did Jesus back down? Explain to me, if this chapter is symbolic, why did He not explain the symbolism to them?
Vs 61, Jesus did not back down, for He said, "Does this offend you?"
He knew their thoughts and He certainly knew the Old Testament verses about the consumption of blood.
In the next verse, He separated spiritual things from earthly things.
Vs 63*, Jesus said, "It is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life."
Did He say He was speaking figuratively or in parables? This is the second verse detractors use to try to "prove" that Jesus spoke figuratively for the whole chapter. Did Jesus say "My" flesh? No, He said "the" flesh. What Jesus had said was, that we cannot accept this mystery if we accept it in too human a way, by having an earthly view of things. Those who can only think of cannibalism, are they not having an earthly view?
See John 3:6, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Verse 63 means that we should not have a carnal human understanding of His words, but a spiritual understanding.
In John, chapter 6, Jesus had not only called the 12 Apostles, there was also much larger group of other disciples. Things seemed to be going pretty well. That is until Jesus said “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,dwelleth in me, and I in him.” This was too much for many of his disciples and “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus turns to the 12 and asks, “Will ye also go away? Simon Peter gives the same answer that I find myself saying to those who tell me I should leave the Catholic Church for this reason or that one, “Lord, to whom shall we go?” No matter what a certain priest does, no matter what scandals hit the church, despite whatever corruption or abuse of power might exist, and despite whatever mistakes the Church has made throughout history, “to whom shall we go?” for here is the body and blood of Christ given for a sinner as miserable as I.
Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.
Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Toutoestin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood
@@JC-li8kk
John 6 is the Passover a year before the Last Supper. The apostles had a whole year to ponder this teaching and ask any questions they had so that when the Last Supper occurred they would have understood what Jesus was doing and teaching.
What Jesus did say on the matter:
48 I am the bread of life.
50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
66 As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
It seems that Scripture and Jesus are clear. And it is clear what happens to those who reject his teaching.
@@biblealone9201My friend you totally missed it . Jesus knew from the beginning those who could not believe. He said” No man CAN come to Me , unless the Father draws him” John 3:3 Jesus said “ Unless a man is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” please read again John 6:63 . May God bless you.
@@donthephoneman7084 Vs 63*, Jesus said, "It is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life."
Did He say He was speaking figuratively or in parables? This is the second verse detractors use to try to "prove" that Jesus spoke figuratively for the whole chapter. Did Jesus say "My" flesh? No, He said "the" flesh. What Jesus had said was, that we cannot accept this mystery if we accept it in too human a way, by having an earthly view of things. Those who can only think of cannibalism, are they not having an earthly view?
See John 3:6, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Verse 63 means that we should not have a carnal human understanding of His words, but a spiritual understanding.
Wow I clicked on this video expecting mad Cats to be here. They always seem to find Dr. White's videos and argue in the comment section lol
Yes, it's the case most of the time, so those of us who support him should comment more often!
@@JamesPeterCovers I comment on most of his videos, he has helped me immensely. RC is the most common religion in the Northeast US where I live.
Oh you guys are Calvinists!
Just kidding. Lol. Me too. It's actually just believing the Bible without all the mental gymnastics.
I’ve yet to agree with one man on everything, so I can never vouch for a man as a whole, but I 100% agree with everything said in this video & will share with others.
James. You need to read the Church fathers. Their understanding of the Eucharistic is the same as the Catholic church of today. The Eucharistic is a gift not just a belief.
no por mi fuerza Señor sino por tu fuerza
"Your will not mine"
based
You stated that there is a difference between the real presence and transubstantiation. Dr. White Can you refer me to a teaching video of yours explaining the difference thank you
Vs 54, "Whoever eats My flesh, and drinks My blood, has eternal life; and I will
raise him up on the last day." Did He say to eat the symbol of His flesh?
Vs 55, Jesus said, "For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed."
Vs 56, Jesus said, "He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood dwells in Me, and I in him."
Did He say, 'He that eats a symbol of My flesh...'. How can a mere symbol fulfill this promise?
Does only a symbol of Christ dwell in us? I thought GOD Himself dwelt within us, 1John 4:12-13.
Vs 59, This verse shows that Jesus taught this discourse to all the people.
Vs 60,They doubt a third time when many disciples said, "This is a hard saying, who can hear it"?
The Jews were instilled by many Old Testament verses, admonishing them not to consume blood.
See Deut 12:23, Lev 17:11and 14. They must have thought this was something akin to cannibalism.
Is this what you think too?
At any point did Jesus back down? Explain to me, if this chapter is symbolic, why did He not explain the symbolism to them?
Vs 61, Jesus did not back down, for He said, "Does this offend you?"
He knew their thoughts and He certainly knew the Old Testament verses about the consumption of blood.
In the next verse, He separated spiritual things from earthly things.
Vs 63*, Jesus said, "It is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life."
Did He say He was speaking figuratively or in parables? This is the second verse detractors use to try to "prove" that Jesus spoke figuratively for the whole chapter. Did Jesus say "My" flesh? No, He said "the" flesh. What Jesus had said was, that we cannot accept this mystery if we accept it in too human a way, by having an earthly view of things. Those who can only think of cannibalism, are they not having an earthly view?
See John 3:6, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Verse 63 means that we should not have a carnal human understanding of His words, but a spiritual understanding.
In John, chapter 6, Jesus had not only called the 12 Apostles, there was also much larger group of other disciples. Things seemed to be going pretty well. That is until Jesus said “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,dwelleth in me, and I in him.” This was too much for many of his disciples and “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus turns to the 12 and asks, “Will ye also go away? Simon Peter gives the same answer that I find myself saying to those who tell me I should leave the Catholic Church for this reason or that one, “Lord, to whom shall we go?” No matter what a certain priest does, no matter what scandals hit the church, despite whatever corruption or abuse of power might exist, and despite whatever mistakes the Church has made throughout history, “to whom shall we go?” for here is the body and blood of Christ given for a sinner as miserable as I.
Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.
Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Toutoestin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood.❤❤
"How can a mere symbol fulfill this promise?"
Answer: Dr. White is not talking about Eucharistic theology. His claim is that John 6 is Christology.
"The Jews were instilled by many Old Testament verses, admonishing them not to consume blood.
See Deut 12:23, Lev 17:11and 14. They must have thought this was something akin to cannibalism.
Is this what you think too?"
Answer: If the Jews thought this was cannibalism, they would not say Jesus was teaching a "hard saying". They called him crazy and demon possessed many times throughout His ministry. By going to the people's reaction is not evidence for transubstantiation, it is evidence against it as, in the Jewish mind, it would warrant to be called something like a usurpation of the Law of Moses as mentioned in Leviticus and Deuteonomy.
"At any point did Jesus back down? Explain to me, if this chapter is symbolic, why did He not explain the symbolism to them? Did He say He was speaking figuratively or in parables? This is the second verse detractors use to try to "prove" that Jesus spoke figuratively for the whole chapter. Did Jesus say "My" flesh? No, He said "the" flesh. What Jesus had said was, that we cannot accept this mystery if we accept it in too human a way, by having an earthly view of things. Those who can only think of cannibalism, are they not having an earthly view?"
Answer: As said, no one here is claiming symbolic Eucharist. And Jesus not backing down does not show he meant transubstantiation, as He says afterward His teaching is "spirit and are life". His teaching is spiritual, therefore they are life. He is not claiming something about the Eucharist, as He explains immediately "But there are some of you who do not believe [in Me as the only way of Salvation]". Thus, He is doing Christology.
"Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood. Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Toutoestin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood."
Answer: All three institution narratives are predicated on the fact that they were done on the most symbolic feast in Judaism. Moreover, after each narrative Jesus describes the "blood of the New Covenant" as "the fruit of the vine" that will not be taken until in the Kingdom of Heaven. Thus, these texts by themselves show memorialism. As for St. Paul, he not only throughout 1 Corinthians 10-11 willingly switches from calling the bread "the body of the Lord" to just calling it bread, he does so as well as with the wine. Moreover, in 1 Corinthians 10, which is his sole primary explanation of the Eucharist, he uses the Greek word for participation "κοινωνία" which is defined as spiritual fellowship. Thus, "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?" is not a physical partaking but is St. Paul saying we spiritually commune with Christ; which is the view of the Reformed / Calvinists Christians as proposed by John Calvin.
It’s a valid argument but you are missing the most important aspect. Does this theology align with scripture as a whole? In other words, when the gospel is presented to unbelievers & they receive salvation, by what means do they receive it? How is one saved?? Remember Jesus said that if you don’t eat his flesh & drink his blood you have no part in him! So if this is the case, how can one say “believe on the Lord Jesus & be saved”? Why would they not instead say “eat his flesh & drink his blood & be saved” if this was the only way to come into the body of Christ?
Instead we must conclude that BY BELIEVING on Jesus one IS eating his flesh & drinking his blood.
@@JC-li8kk how can one say “believe on the Lord Jesus & be saved”?
Believe what everything he commanded
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.". Things seemed to be going pretty well. That is until Jesus said “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,dwelleth in me, and I in him.” This was too much for many of his disciples and “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus turns to the 12 and asks, “Will ye also go away? Vs 61, Jesus did not back down, for He said, "Does this offend you?" it offends protestants. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
Jn 20:21, "As the Father has sent Me, I also send you."
Jn 17:18, "Even as thou hast sent Me into the world, so I have sent them into the world."
Jn 17:22-23, "And the glory that thou hast given Me, I have given to
Matt. 28, 18-20: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore. and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism."
"Accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior," or "Ask Jesus into your heart" isn't the biblical answer.
It’s important to be saved from hell, damnation, and the stain of original sin, but what are we saved for? We are saved for union with Christ. Our salvation began when we were born again through baptism and God’s own Divine Life was restored in our souls, making us like Adam and Eve were in the Garden before the Original (first) Sin. As we go through life, we are united with Christ through the Sacraments he left as gifts for us, especially through Penance (forgiveness of our sins committed since Baptism) and the Eucharist (partaking of God’s own Life, His own Divine Nature, 2 Peter 1:4) - until that day when we are truly united with Him in heaven.
Scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. As Jesus himself tells us, "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:31-46). One who dies in the state of friendship with God (the state of grace) will go to heaven. The one who dies in a state of rebellion against God (the state of mortal sin) will go to hell. (For the teaching on venial (non-deadly) and mortal (deadly) sins, see 1 John 5:16-17)
What I must do to be saved:
*I must be baptized with water and the Spirit. Mark 16:16, John 3:3-5, Titus 3:5, I Peter 3:20-21. (Exceptions: [1] If I desire Baptism but die before I can be baptized with water and the Spirit, God accepts my desire to be baptized, and [2] If I am killed (martyred) because of my faith, but I have not had the opportunity to be baptized, God accepts my death as my baptism, called the Baptism of Blood).
* I must do the will of God the Father. Matthew 7:21
* I must keep the Commandments of God. Matthew 5:19-20, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 19:17, 1 Timothy 6:14, and others.
* I must accept the Cross (suffering). Matthew 10:38, Matthew 16:24-25, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, Luke 14:27. Phil 1:29, and others.
* I must be a member of God's true church. Acts 2:46-47.
* I must confess my sins. James 5:16, I John 1:9, John 20:19-23
* I must heed the words of St. Peter, the first Pope. Acts 11:13-14, Acts 15:7.
* I must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ. John 6:51-58, I Corinthians 10:16-17, 11:23-30.
* I must do unto others as I would have them do unto me and love my neighbor as myself. I must feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, visit the sick and those in prison or give other aid to those in need. Luke 10:33 ff, Mt 25:31-46. "Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are very pleasing to God" Hebrews 13:16. Good works don’t save us, but we will be judged by them.
*I must strive to be holy. "Strive for peace with everyone and for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord." Hebrews 12:14
*I must endure (persevere) to the end. Matthew 10:22, Matthew 24:13, Mark 13:13.
And ... ? What else must I do?
Catechism
#432 The name "Jesus" signifies that the very name of God is present in the person of his Son, made man for the universal and definitive redemption from sins. It is the divine name that alone brings salvation, and henceforth all can invoke his name, for Jesus united himself to all men through his Incarnation, so that "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."
@@biblealone9201 Not sure why Jesus died such a horrible death for us, because the work is all ours, not his. We must find your just right church, we must be cannibals, we must do do do do.
@@biblealone9201
I know it's late ,that's a well thought out post .I completely agree my friend 👍
Christ Jesus truly said at His Last Supper, "Do this ALL of you in REMEMBRANCE of ME." (ref. Mark 14:22 / Luke 2:18-20 / 1 Corin. 11:23-25)...
Logically speaking, it was just a METAPHOR or SYMBOLISM which means to "BELIEVE" and to have "FAITH" in HIM (Christ Jesus) through God's GRACE when Christ said, "Whoever EATS MY Flesh and DRINKS MY Blood has Eternal Life." (ref. John 6:54)...
If that was a literal FLESH and literal BLOOD of Christ Jesus through the R.C.C. Doctrine of TRANSUBSTANTIATION, then, Christ Jesus himself had VIOLATED the Scripture, the Prohibition from Drinking Literal BLOOD of Animals and Humans including Eating Literal Human Flesh. (ref. Leviticus 17:13-15).
Christ clearly said, "I did not come to abolish/destroy the LAW but to Fulfill." (ref. Matt. 5:17)... Will Christ teach that LITERALLY?... NOPE.
Aside from that, if TRANSUBSTANTIATIONP is TRUE, why does during the R.C.C. Mass, the Priest/Bishop/Pope was the only one drinking from the Cup of Wine that was Miraculously turned into Literal Blood of Christ?... it should be for all the R.C.C. Congregation/Parishioners to drink from One Cup...
Christ clearly said, "Drink from "MY CUP" (singular), logically from ONE CUP only... (ref. Matt. 20:23)...
Will the Miraculous Blood of Christ be contaminated by the SALIVAS of the Parishioners drinking from ONE CUP?... Obviously, God will not allow it to happen even to contaminate the CUP (Container/holder/vessel) that holds the Literal BLOOD of Christ Jesus if the Transubstantiation is TRUE...
However, when the Pandemic arises, it proves, that TRANSUBSTANTIATION is not TRUE... Even if you ask just 100 priests to line up and drink from ONE CUP, the last half of the priests will voluntarily sure not drink from ONE CUP...
Facts and Truth of the Matters, Biblically and Logically speaking Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen...
Great teaching 😀
It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. - John 6:63
His meaning is, You must hear spiritually what relates to Me, for he who hears carnally is not profited, nor gathers any advantage. It was carnal to question how He came down from heaven, to deem that He was the son of Joseph, to ask, How can he give us His flesh to eat? All this was carnal, when they ought to have understood the matter in a mystical and spiritual sense. But, says some one, how could they understand what the 'eating flesh' might mean? Then it was their duty to wait for the proper time and enquire, and not to abandon Him.
The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.
That is, they are divine and spiritual, have nothing carnal about them, are not subject to the laws of physical consequence, but are free from any such necessity, are even set above the laws appointed for this world, and have also another and a different meaning. Now as in this passage He said spirit, instead of spiritual, so when He speaks of flesh, He meant not carnal things, but carnally hearing, and alluding at the same time to them, because they ever desired carnal things when they ought to have desired spiritual. For if a man receives them carnally, he profits nothing. What then, is not His flesh, flesh? Most certainly. How then says He, that the flesh profits nothing? He speaks not of His own flesh, (God forbid!) but of those who received His words in a carnal manner. But what is understanding carnally? It is looking merely to what is before our eyes, without imagining anything beyond. This is understanding carnally. But we must not judge thus by sight, but must look into all mysteries with the eyes within. This is seeing spiritually. He that eats not His flesh, and drinks not His blood, has no life in him. How then does the flesh profit nothing, if without it we cannot live? Do you see that the words, the flesh profits nothing, are spoken not of His own flesh, but of carnal hearing?
- John Chrysostom
Read more commentaries at catenabible.com/com/57eb0a75b0d44ee10cfabb38
Hi Carlos, the grammar structure and the context does not support that. In John 6:63, "gives life" is the same word in Greek as "life-giving" Spirit in 1 Corinthians 15:45. This word is only used in these two verses in the entire Bible. 'The spirit' in John 6:63 then is not spiritual hearing but the Holy Spirit Himself who is the life-giver, that is, who gives life. Hence, the flesh hear must refer to His physical flesh, which in itself does not give life (zoe-eternal, divine life), because it is being contrasted to His Spirit.
Then verse 63 says, "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." So Jesus is saying that it is the "words" that are spirit and are life. Through our contacting the His words by faith in prayer, we can receive life from the life-giving Spirit (cf. Matt. 4:4; John 5:39-40; Eph. 6:17-18). That is why Peter's answer in verse 68 is, "You have WORDS of eternal life," and not "flesh" of eternal life.
I guess you believe Jesus' flesh is of no avail 🤷♂️ 😂
@@reznet2 Christ’s flesh isn’t a potion that gives you life my guy.
@@conversative I'm someone balancing between catholicism and protestantism so do not press me, but my first point is this: Jesus did not distinguish that He was speaking metaphorically. For example, the parable in John 10, none of His disciples were understanding He was speaking metaphorically until He said that He was, Jesus is not a literal plank of wood with two hinges bolted on His side. When Jesus was declaring earlier in that chapter that the Father draws people to Jesus, it doesn't mean all will accept Him. Jesus reiterated that phrase numerous of times before He brought up the flesh verse, almost as if He expected this reaction.
2. How can you explain 1 Corin 10:16 where apostle Paul seems to understand the concept of communion literally?
3. If Jesus was talking about His flesh, then why didn't it simply say, "The Spirit gives life; [my] flesh counts for nothing." Isn't is possible that when He says, "My spirit gives life", can simply mean both? In other words, when you accept the Words that Jesus has spoke, then is eating the flesh necessary? Again, Jesus never said in this passage that eating His flesh is optional, but rather, A MUST. Jesus compared Himself to the bread, then how His bread will not be the bread of Manna, for His is everlasting, and then says His flesh is the bread.
I'm not saying your rebuttal is wrong, but I don't think your response is enough to push this issue over.
@@TheDisciple21 Thanks for the detailed response.
1. “Jesus did not distinguish that He was speaking metaphorically.” Jesus spoke many things without clarifying their meaning. The crowds (Matthew 13:2) never got the explanation for the kingdom (13:11). Even His disciples never got the explanation for the other parables starting in verse 44. In John 2:19 He never explains to the people that He is talking about His body, not the physical temple. And many more instances. But in John 6, Jesus actually does distinguish that He is not talking about the literal, physical flesh (verse 63).
2. “How can you explain 1 Corin 10:16 where apostle Paul seems to understand the concept of communion literally? ” Could you explain what you mean by ‘Paul…to understand…communion literally’? Bread and cup that one partakes with faith surely has a spiritual reality applied to it. Compare it to verse 20 where eating sacrifices offered to demons causes one to have communion with demons.
3. “why didn't it simply say, "The Spirit gives life; [my] flesh counts for nothing."” I believe “the flesh” makes it a stronger assertion. It’s not just Jesus’ flesh. It’s *the* flesh as a whole. There is no flesh that can give eternal life.
Compare John 6 with Matthew 4:4. While the physical bread to nourish our physical being (body), God’s *words* are the spiritual bread to nourish our spiritual being (spirit and soul).
Amen. I challenge Catholics to put verses 40 and 54 of John 6 side by side and you will see that Jesus is equating the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood to believing on Him. Additionally we know that verse 54 is metaphorical to believing because in verse 40, Jesus said that "For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.” However, in verse 54, Jesus does not say that the will of His Father is to eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man. Verse 40 explicitly says that the will of the Father is that anyone who looks upon the Son and believes (continue believing) will have eternal life.
How can anyone with any amount of contextual understanding of scripture not conclude that John 6 is about believing on Jesus Christ.
His view is the minority Chistian view of the Eucharist. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, some Lutherans, etc believe in the real presence of the Eucharist. His view was developed 500 years ago. For the first 1500 years every Christian believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. You can read all the church fathers writings and they believed in the real presence.
NOWHERE does the gospel even MENTION the Lord’s Supper (Communion, Eucharist) in the same sentence as salvation. The gospel is ALWAYS righteousness by Faith, salvation by Faith. NEVER about eating bread/flesh or drinking the cup/blood. Why?? Because when you COME to Christ and BELIEVE you ARE eating his flesh & drinking His blood. That is the ONLY way to eat his flesh & drink His blood, to COME to him and BELIEVE. Or do you think that an atheist can take the Lord’s Supper, not believe, & yet be saved??
@@JC-li8kk
You: NOWHERE does the gospel even MENTION the Lord’s Supper (Communion, Eucharist) in the same sentence as salvation.
Me: John 6:66 As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
John6: 54 Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
You: That is the ONLY way to eat his flesh & drink His blood, to COME to him and BELIEVE.
Me: The only was is to eat his flesh and drink his blood as real Christians have been doing for some 2,000 years.
You: Or do you think that an atheist can take the Lord’s Supper, not believe, & yet be saved??
Me: He would receive in the state of mortal sin and die with worse sin than when he began.
Not so fast about ALL early Christians believed in the real presence of the Eucharist. Many of us have no problem w/ a real presence of the Eucharist, but what you mean is transubstantiation. That doctrine was a development, that came hundreds of years later. The apostles sure didn't mention, one of the earliest church writings, The Didache, doesn't mention it. Not all the church fathers are clearly about believing in transubstantiation either. Which makes Christ a continual sacrifice forever, even though the work of the cross is was finished at Calvary, and also effectively making us all cannibals.
@@JC-li8kk And you believe the act of believing that we are eating the literal body and blood is what saves us?
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Many of Jesus's disciples left him in John Ch. 6:54 discourse on eating his body and drinking his blood. He repeated this six times, "Amen, amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have not have life in you."
" Whoever eat my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life , and I will raise him up on the last day."
"For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."
Jesus compares his body to the mana sent to the Israelites. "Your fathers ate manna in the desert, and they died. This is the bread which descends from heaven, so that if anyone will eat from it, he may not die."
If manna, a miraculous bread in the old testament was amazing then the new testament manna, Jesus's body as bread has to be more substantial than the old testament manna. The new bread which replaces the manna is Jesus's body.
All the early church fathers believe this and billions of Christians except a few believe that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. Your view a minority and heretical view that was condemned in the 2nd century.
Anybody can tear apart any given truth. Politicians do it every day.. You have not pursued the truth with your personal interpretation of John 6. It is obvious what Jesus is saying, and when many of his followers walk away, he let's them go. They are not interested in the truth. You are doing the same thing. You are walking away from the truth.
Amen
Unfortunately the _traditionally religious_ cannot consistently apply the _spiritual_ with any of their arguments.
They jump between the spiritual meaning and an interpretive physical meaning and back again without flinching an eyelid.
I have provided the holy scripture to provide insight as to Catholic dogma on the Eucharist - the REAL presence. I find it problematic Dr White isnt able to do same for his audiences. The Son of Man, explanation given by White is well known for thousands of years, it is a term the Jewish faithful would correlate to the prophets. However, Dr White has a recurring habit in his apologetics to jump around a lot instead of making his point. Why doesn't not make his path straight, instead digressing about new words, anecdotes, describing the Son of Man all unnecessary to refute or debunk the Eucharist. If he has the proof of this let him cut to the chase using scripture in the all the Holy Bible to do so. For 1500 years before the protestant church began it's movement of faith alone, all early Christians ( Catholics and Orthodox) believed then and do now, the REAL PRESECNCE OF CHRIST JESUS in the Eucharist. Let that sink in.
There is nothing NEW that Dr White can demonstrate, but he tries...However, if Jesus wanted to double down on belief alone for his Eucharist remembrance, he would have said it, correct? Jesus goes on to say " I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me." again He didn't say " same as believing in His divinity. When the multitude are leaving Jesus and his apostles tell Him that the saying is hard to accept, does Jesus reassure them that it is a metaphor or parable and that he meant belief in Him being the Savior? NOPE. As you will SEE believe St Paul ALSO believes and CAUTIONS those believing Christians NOT to take the Eucharist UNWORTHILY. Finally, below you see that purposely Jesus did not REVEAL His identity to the 2 men on the road Emmaus until He Blessed and broke the bread...then VANISHED. Some protestants like to jest that Jesus isn't inside a wafer of Bread. Jesus is God and He has already proven He is capable of all miracles and He also has proved He is diligent to fulfill all prophecies and truths of His Word.
Truly. as his vocation, I hope Dr White do a little more due diligence in his anti-Catholic rhetoric. Also, seriously researching the miracles of Eucharist throughout the ages, with more modern miracles' findings making scientists scratch their heads. You won't hear on mainstream news, just like you won't hear the miracles of the Shroud of Turin. RESEARCH and READ and learn for yourselves.
JOHN 6:45:
It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. 46 Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread[c] which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”[d] 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who 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 eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
Luke 22:15:
And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you I will not eat it[a] until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. 18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.[b]
ST PAUL
1 Corinthians 23:
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for[c] you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Partaking of the Supper Unworthily
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
Luke 24:28
So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He acted as if he were going farther, 29 but they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children
ST. IGNATIUS of Antioch on the Eucharist in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans:
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.”
The earliest Christians were much more informed without their faith being watered down by 500 years of protestant interpretations. The belief in Jesus' REAL presence for His future believers is essential and let's not forget Jesus said He is with us always until the close of the age.
Real presence is not transubstantiation
Thank you James white 🙏🙏 i love you!
Yeah and another thing the Pharisees said what they did because of cannibalism which is unlawful in the Bible so what do this was talkin about was a spiritual and symbolic thing
I've never heard someone who claims to be a literalist be so dismissive of plain text in my entire life. James white is so..... wrong
What do you think He's talking about when He says, "the one believing has eternal life"? What is He talking about? He wants you to believe what He's telling you, but you don't. You just want to cherry pick verses that say "believe" and not care about what He's asking you to believe.
The same believing is belief "in the One He Sent" that allows you access to the "food that endures to eternal life". The focus is on Jesus and His Flesh on the condition of belief "granted to Him by the Father". The whole language of St. John is not on the condition of a sacrament.
@@HisLivingStone241 "the bread that I will give is my flesh"
Last Supper holding bread: "this is my body"
Yes, He was instituting the Eucharist.
@@tabandken8562 quoting Scripture without refutation does not refute the explanation I gave for Scripture.
@@HisLivingStone241 I did refute you. You're either too blindfold dumb to see it.
@Tab and Ken pointing to somewhat similar words in a different context and different dialogue is a refutation?
Jesus speaks of those with eyes but don’t see and ears but don’t hear. Is he speaking about physical eyes and ears? Nope. Spiritual eyes and spiritual ears will see and hear things of the spirit.
“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”
- 1 Corinthians 2:14
In the same way, am I to eat spiritual food and spiritual drink with my physical mouth? Nope. We eat and drink the body and blood of Christ by believing in him!
“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”
- John 6:63
Protestants believe in real presence in the Lord’s Supper. Since when is the spirit not real???? The Spirit of God is in our midst when we gather in his name. When we break the bread we remember his true body that was broken as true life-giving spiritual food for us. When we pour the wine we remember his true blood that was poured out as true life-giving spiritual drink for us! Praise King Jesus!
You're wasting your time throwing pearls
He's throwing manure.
@@bridgefin exactly...
@@bridgefin You really can't follow the argumentation throughout John 6, can you? Traditions by men blind you.
@@KnightFel
Where did I get it wrong? Better, I follow the argument and reject it as false.
@@bridgefin
"Where did I get it wrong? Better, I follow the argument and reject it as false."
You only made a comment of James White throwing manure.
Void of logic, thought, consideration, care, value, and love.
This is NOT how you love brothers.
You have just shown everything we need to know about who you are.
8:05 "please lay aside your traditions"
Lmao, you first friend 😂
7:30 James white trying to speak to himself lol
And if you fail to believe the words repeated over and over again here, then you are not a believer. If the Eucharist was just spiritual then Jesus calls back the disciples in John 6:66 and explains that they will not be drinking real blood but only spiritual blood. But he doesn't. It appears that both Jesus and those departing disciples got what Protestants deny: that Jesus was telling the truth when he said "This IS MY BODY".
Actually that's exactly what He did. In verse 63.
@@dannymcmullan9375
Then Jesus lost his disciples over a misunderstanding which he failed to correct. That makes him about the worst teacher on the face of the earth. Surely not savior material.
AND your interpretation was not heard for 1000 years of Christianity which makes your Holy Spirit all but useless in guiding the church. You have abused two of the trinity so far. Care to trash the Father next?
@@bridgefin He didn't lose His disciples. The ones that left were never His. They got it wrong because they were unbelievers. And what did they get wrong? The same thing you are getting wrong. They thought He was talking about actually eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He corrects them in verse 63 which you ignored. Jesus is talking about coming to Him and believing which He explains clearly in the preceding verses. That is what the whole passage is about. They should have got it because He had already explained what He was talking about. The Catholic church gets it wrong too and creates a false doctrine out of it. As far as your false accusations concerning the Trinity. Well that's all it is. The issue is that you are not dealing with the text. The whole text. You are not hearing the word of God just as they didn't. And why not. As Jesus said, " no one can come to me unless they are given to me by my Father". And I'll add, that truth is why the false disciples left. Will you leave also?
@@dannymcmullan9375
You: He didn't lose His disciples. The ones that left were never His.
Me: Scripture contradicts your interpretation. John 6:66: As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
You: He corrects them in verse 63 which you ignored.
Me: That doesn't say what you want it to say. They would have had no reason to leave over make believe blood.
You: Jesus is talking about coming to Him and believing which He explains clearly in the preceding verses. That is what the whole passage is about.
Me: Four times Jesus tells them with increasing emphasis that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. And he does this after performing a miracle of the loaves of bread. And you have, apparently intentionally, missed the entire meaning of the chapter.
You: As Jesus said, " no one can come to me unless they are given to me by my Father". And I'll add, that truth is why the false disciples left. Will you leave also?
Me: I have stayed with Jesus through it all. According to Jesus YOU have no life within you.
@@bridgefin Yes He did say it four times but only after having defined what He was talking about. That being, coming and believing. Only by coming to Jesus and believing can you be saved. Just like the theif on the cross. He didn't have to eat anything and he was saved. I don't want you to perish for a fleshly tradition. The flesh profits nothing. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. I hope you will. Have a nice day.
Run away , Run Away
False Teacher !! False Teacher !!
Rome? Yes.
@@KnightFelThe Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).
Oh man... time to get your Jewish glasses on James White. He sounds like a Jehovah's Witness.
Just sounds like someone who can exegete and not trust tradition over Christ.
@@KnightFel Well we're supposed to only trust one church's tradition apparently. The one that used to kill people for not trusting their tradition and trying to think for themself.
False dichotomy at the outset
No u are wrong and a heretic, The incarnate word trumps ur personal vapor opinion. U deny and oppose the words of Jesus Christ...pray and repent.
Not at all.