Just look at old hymns and spirituals, like “I’ll fly away, O glory, I’ll fly away. When I die, Hallelujah by and by, I’ll fly away.” Of course they profess belief in the general resurrection, but the Protestant instinct seems to be to lean toward leaving the bad old body. Of course, it’s impossible to generalize too much because there are myriad protestantisms.
@@stephenjohnson7915I don't really see that particular view being emphasized too much, and I'm not too sure how you're getting that idea from that hymn. Even the rapture folks believe they will be taken up body and soul.
@@benjaminwarsocki1663 It's one thing to explicitly profess certain beliefs and another to implicitly believe things, whether you know it or not. That's why there were councils to define so many dogmas of the faith that may seem to some as needlessly intricate and complex. The details really do matter.
@@sakamotosan1887 this definitely the case of the Marian dogmas. You could say you believe in certain things, but if you misapply the application, it can mess up the implicit belief in the underlying thing. Do you believe that we have eternal life in Christ? Then Mary and the Saints are not dead. Do you believe in the body of Christ and that we are one in Christ? And that we can and should intercede for one another? Then why would we stop when we get to heaven?
@@vinciblegaming6817 Exactly. The standard Protestant argument seems to be that because it isn't written in the Bible anywhere that they can hear our prayers despite acknowledging that they are indeed alive in Christ, therefore they cannot hear our prayers and we should not ask for their intercessions. It's built on baseless assumptions and arguments from silence. Pointing to the "great cloud of witnesses" doesn't do any good either, despite seemingly being very clear. Some people are really just blind and refuse to see. All we can do is pray. It is God who shows people the truth, we cannot convince people in their hearts. I'm dealing with this with my parents currently. I try to explain how authority works and that the Bible doesn't interpret itself, but there is a trump card that my mom plays: The Holy Spirit. By virtue of being a believer, one has the Holy Spirit, thus one is guided in reading the Scriptures and cannot be led astray. When pointing out that this leads many people to many different conclusions, all I get is a shrug and an obstinate refusal to see the logic of my position. It is endlessly frustrating.
I left the Catholic church many years ago when verse 63 was pointed out to me by a Protestant preacher, that Jesus was explaining that he was speaking metaphorically in the preceding verses. All these years later, I am seeing that it was an incorrect interpretation of that verse. This video was the exact thing I needed to watch to solidify my decision to come "home". I had to humble myself greatly. It takes humility to actually seek the truth by seriously weighing both sides of a point of view, rather than just trying to prove that we are right.
Welcome home! ( At the age of 38 I came home to The Catholic Church after being raised in the Anglican ciommunion .) Your point about humility is spot on. On the Internet the prevailing attitude far too often seems a desire to win an argument rather than to seek truth Let us all strive to be "meek and humble of heart ".
want to se all the pro0tetant objections against the Eucharist go up in smoke. Best and most entertaining video Iv ever seen on the eucharist ruclips.net/video/f-jinF-O3fM/видео.html
Went to my first Mass Sunday. I've been trying to pinpoint exactly what I was feeling during Mass. It was a mix of excitement and nervousness-the kind of feeling you get when you're about to meet someone you've always longed to meet but are unsure of how it will go. Then, out of nowhere, as the Eucharist was about to be presented, I started crying and couldn’t stop. The emotion was even more intense than I can describe, but that's the closest I can get to explaining it. Please do an episode on Gnosticism and its connection to reformed theology
Beautiful. Sometimes when I get close to scratching the surface of understanding about the Eucharist it is overwhelming for me as well. To think the creator of the universe loves us so much he became like us and then gives himself freely to us in the Eucharist so that we may be United to him in the most intimate way. Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof. But only say the word and my soul shall be healed!
@@johnbrion4565 That's a wonderful book. He also did an hour-long video on the subject, which is brilliant: ruclips.net/video/P45BHDRA7pU/видео.htmlsi=_hvKXaIQgS7Zxi5H
I remember being a Protestant last year and trying to die on this hill. And, over the course of many RUclips comment section arguments, coming to terms with the fact that it really doesn't prove much of anything. Catholicism is very humbling
Yesss!!!! Submitting to the Church is the same as submitting to Christ... it is his body!! It may not be exactly what I believe or want to believe at first...
If Christs flesh is of no avail and he was only speaking in the spiritual sense, than why did His flesh have to suffer on the cross vs just spiritually suffering alone. If Christ’s Flesh is of no avail, than our human nature has not been joined to God by Jesus sacrifice on the Cross.
This is the big point. Protestant arguments often fail to consider their application to other important areas of theology. Sure, you argued against big bad Rome, but then you denied the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice by doing so.
Jesus had to be punished in our place. He could not have been punished in a figurative sense. The cross and the Lord's supper are 2 different realities
@@Maranatha99 After He took the wine He said it is finished, what was finished was the Passover. He wasn't punished, He offered Himself as a sacrifice
I'd been an evangelical Protestant my whole life, but recently I've been really considering becoming Catholic (it started with Anglicanism lol). I was already pretty convinced of the true presence view of the Eucharist, but this video was a great confirmation and summary! Definitely gonna hold onto it for when this kind of debate comes up. Thanks, and peace of Christ!
I would encourage you to be cautious of the "plausible arguments" here. If you believe in the true presence, that is fine, but it doesn't actually make logical sense to base that on exegesis of John 6. Did you notice that Joe doesn't quote any of the parallel verses in John 6 where Jesus makes clear that it is believing in him that results in eternal life. Compare John 6:40 with 6:54. They are equivalent statements with exactly the same result (eternal life and being raised on the last day.) This shows that "eating his flesh and drinking his blood" is the spiritual act of believing In Christ for salvation. Also Joe completely misunderstands how metaphors work. He says that if you believe a metaphor teaches a spiritual truth then you must also believe that the spiritual truth is only metaphorical! So with that error in mind he claims that the Protestants metaphorical view of Jn 6 inadvertently results in the denial the reality of the spiritual body of our resurrection to come. This is a logical fallacy: metaphors teach a spiritual truth but that spiritual truth is the REAL part of the metaphor, not the figurative part. He gets this backward. This take some thought beyond just hearing and receiving. The Apostle Paul warns us to test doctrine and watch it closely. This does not hold up to close inspection. I do hope you do not give way to the teachings of men which Catholicism will bind you to. We do share many important doctrines, but many others are plausible but unscriptural. (Colossians 2:4)
@@jmferris542 Hi there, I could give you an extensive and in-depth response, but I’ll just recommend a video instead, since he does a better job than me. It’s called “What does “Eat My Flesh” Mean? (PART II)”, and his channel is called “How To Be Christian”, I think you’ll find it not only quite informational, but hard to deny. It’s up to you, but it immensely helped me understand even more :)
@@TrickeryManThanks for the link, I started the video but it will be a bit before I can take the time for it all. But so far his error is that he reads, "and the bread I give for the life of the world is my flesh" = the giving of bread at the Last Supper (his pink area), therefore, the Eucharist. But the giving of his flesh for the life of the world = Jesus giving of his life as a sacrifice on the cross. And the Last Supper likewise is picturing his imminent sacrifice, hence the similarity to John 6. They point to the same reality. Honestly, the issue isn't really transubstantiation, we all can be convinced of whatever particular level of real presence is in the Eucharist, and if we take it worthily, in true spiritual participation with his body and blood, God is not going to manifest his presence differently according to the convictions of the recipient. We all receive the same benefit - if it is done scripturally. The real problem with the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is that they effectively ignore and replace true personal faith in Christ (Jn 6:29, 35, 40, 47) with physical ingestion of the Eucharist. Because eating the Eucharist is the means to eternal life (6:54) instead of belief, many Catholics never truly receive Jesus spiritually because they believe it has been done in their Eucharist participation. The Gospel is changed to: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever eats the Eucharist will not perish but have everlasting life." This is a tragic consequence of reading current Catholic doctrine back into John 6.
@@jmferris542 Jesus said that whoever believes has eternal life (John 6:47). Subsequently, he specified what those people should believe and begins to describe this belief (Jn 6:48-51). The Jews were offended by his description of this belief because they took it literally to believe that they were literally to eat his body as they ate the manna. (John 6:52) - in the original, the word "eat" is used to describe literal biting (you can look it up yourself) Jesus didn't tell them it wasn't literal. He confirmed what offended them - that is, the literal understanding. (John 6:53-58, especially John 6:55) Subsequently, they became even more offended and said that this is hard to listen to and how can they accept it. (John 6:60) Subsequently, when Jesus saw them outraged, he confirmed the literal understanding by saying that the flesh can do nothing by itself, but it is the Spirit who gives life to the body and that his words (regarding the literal understanding) are full of the Spirit and life . (John 6:63). What does that mean? He confirmed that in the eucharist (new manna) is Spirit - life. Unfortunately, he said, not everyone believes. (Jn 6:64) What do not all believe? A literal understanding. Subsequently, many of his disciples left (Jn 6:66) - why? Because they did not believe in the literal understanding and did not understand it is physical food with a spiritual dimension and therefore gives (eternal) life.
After a process of self-discovery, I've come to understand that my own theological make up may have deep Gnostic tendencies. But I see no reason to be ashamed of this, and I fear a video on Gnosticism by a channel such as this would be little more than aggressive Conversion Therapy
Joe, I have to tell you, I love your videos! You seem so kind and understanding while you teach. I have a hard time finding videos to explain topics to my lapsed Catholic, now Protestant, parents; but you explain these things in such a charitable way that I know they won't be offended watching them--thank you!
6:10 I’ve been thinking about this lately. Until about 500 years ago, Christians believed in the real presence in the Eucharist. Until around 200 years ago, even non-Catholic Christians believed Mary was a perpetual virgin. In another 200 years, what other belief will non-Catholic Christians reject? Is the resurrection the next belief to be labeled “symbolic” or “figurative?” Thanks for that video, Joe!
@MaximilianKolbePrayForUs They don't see this because all they see is what they see right now. They can't see the forest for the trees. They have a complete lack of foresight, as much as they lack sight into the past.
@@MrsYasha1984 Really! I didn't know that any Christians were denying the historical accuracy of the literal Resurrection; belief in the Resurrection is what makes us Christians?!
So many heresies, so little time! Book suggestion: "Dissent From The Creed" by Rev. Richard M. Hogan. It details and gives a synopsis of the major and many minor heresies. Strangely, the heresies seem to chronologically follow the sections of the Apostle's Creed.
The Protestant, specifically the Evangelical/ Baptist view of the Eucharist as being nothing but a symbol, it just flies in the face of the earliest discourses from the church fathers. Not only does a clear reading of the text lead to the Catholic /orthodox understanding of the Eucharist, you also have 1,500 years years of Christians holding to this view before anyone developed in alternative explanation and that in the light of a radically unchristian ecclesiology.
“It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh(Human Reason) is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit (Spiritual/Supernatural) and life.” John 6:63 What Jesus was talking about in John 6 was something Supernatural, it can't be understood using Human Reason it's... " of no avail." That is why the people walked away, they were looking at it through the lens of the carnal mind. If you look at John 6 through the lens of the Supernatural it can be understood. The Eucharist is something Supernatural.
@Michael-bk5nz for what exactly!!! Have you not read the entire chapter of John 6? The very fact that Jesus numerous times tried to get the multitude to see the difference between feeding their physical bodies and their souls. And the CC conclusion is you have to eat the flesh and drink his blood. The CC is as blind and deaf as the multitude. How many times did the Lord tell the multitude what the work of his father was and they chose not to listen? Time and time again they kept pressing the Lord to feed them to where he finally said the only thing I will give you is my flesh. You have to spiritually blind and deaf not to understand what the Lord was saying.
And Muslims believed Christians thought Mary was a member of the Trinity and the mother of the divine nature of Christ. So it must be true too? That’s a bad argument.
@@jellyphase They would only have gotten these ideas if they misunderstood a concept that was shocking to them, and that would not be easy to clarify in a conversation. For example, when a muslim hears the title "God bearer", it was easy to get things wrong-
The words " Flesh is of no avail" as Rightly pointed out at time 4:18 to 4:32 is our Flesh. The underlying meaning is that Eucharist is the exchange of Flesh, we have to give ours to the cross in Exchange for Jesus Divine Flesh.. As Rom:12:1 says "offer your bodies to him as a living sacrifice...."
“It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh(Human Reason) is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit (Spiritual/Supernatural) and life.” John 6:63 What Jesus was talking about in John 6 was something Supernatural, it can't be understood using Human Reason it's... " of no avail." That is why the people walked away, they were looking at it through the lens of the carnal mind. If you look at John 6 through the lens of the Supernatural it can be understood. The Eucharist is something Supernatural.
@@MegaTechno2000HIS disciples did not walk away! Please read what St Peter said! Those that walked away were followers of Moses who had told them to avoid the consumption of blood. HIS disciples trusted in HIM and stayed with HIM🙏❤️🙏
@@patriciagrenier9082 If you reread I actually didn't say "disciples" ...I said "the people". But if you want to be precise it actually does say disciples. But it's not talking about the original 12 Apostles. 66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. John 6:66
Joe is awesome. Great video, truly an eye-opener for whoever is willing to listen. Also, yes to the gnosticism video, please. It has been trying to make a come back lately, we need to be prepared.
If verse 63 is so clearly teaching that what Jesus was saying was “spiritual” or metaphorical then why did his disciples STILL walk away from him after that? That’s clear evidence that everyone, EVERYONE continued to understand Jesus’ teaching in a literal sense.
“It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh(Human Reason) is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit (Spiritual/Supernatural) and life.” John 6:63 What Jesus was talking about in John 6 was something Supernatural, it can't be understood using Human Reason it's... " of no avail." That is why the people walked away, they were looking at it through the lens of the carnal mind. If you look at John 6 through the lens of the Supernatural it can be understood. The Eucharist is something Supernatural.
Yes Joe, please do a deep dive on Gnosticism’s infiltration into some areas of Protestantism. As a recent convert from Evangelicalism I have much to learn. Always look forward to your posts.
I would really be interested in a deeper dive into the gnostic influences in the reformation and later denominations. I am currently working my way from my current church into the Catholic Church, and these videos really help me in my understanding, thank you for your help.
I grew up as a Protestant believer and, now at 56 years of age, have found myself falling in love with what I've discovered within Catholicism (although I'm not yet Catholic). In no small part, this has been due to the faithful efforts of people such as Joe Heschmeyer! In addressing this section of John (chapter 6), I have come to the following conclusions... It is true that Protestants will often use this statement of Jesus as a hermeneutic to argue that he was speaking metaphorically when he said "whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life". However, this interpretation ignores the context of this section of John, in which Jesus is clearly recapitulating the drama of Moses’ dealings with the Israelites during their 40 years of testing in the desert before being allowed to enter the Promised Land (verses 31-33; also compare the people's statement in verse 14 w/Deuteronomy 18:15 & St. Paul's understanding of this in Acts 3:22-23). Another observation that bolsters this point is that, during the feeding of the 5,000 there's a further reference found in both the gospel of Mark & Luke to Jesus instructing his disciples to separate the multitude into groups, which echoes back to the event of Moses appointing leaders for Israel during their 40-year sojourn in the wilderness (Exodus 18:24-26; Mark 6:39-40 & Luke 9:14). Here, we see Jesus begin to sidestep the corrupt religious leaders by appointing his disciples as the new servant-leadership over the 12 tribes of Israel (the "sheep without a shepherd" / Mark 6:34... ref. Ezekiel 34:1-16). Fulfilling his promise in Ezekiel, God in Christ is coming to shepherd his people and, like the wilderness generation, he is making a distinction amongst the people by separating those who believe from those who do not believe... that He is the true bread given by the Father... that his flesh is true food and his blood is true drink (verses 52-58). However, after being confronted with such a radical claim, "many of his disciples said, 'This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?'" (verse 60). Which leads us to the controversial text in question... “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But among you there are some who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.” Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.” (verses 63-66). In the bread of life discourse, we hear a clear reference to Israel’s 40 years of testing in the wilderness and of those who perished because of their unbelief (Heb. 3:7-19; Jude 1:5). In the light of this and the broader context of Scripture, might we rather view this statement of Jesus (“It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is of no avail”) as a counter-argument to the Jews' nationalistic claims to membership in the Kingdom of God by invoking their "covenant boundary markers" (circumcision / receiving the Law / receiving the manna in the wilderness)? And, going even further behind all this drama, might we even hear an echo of the underlying theme presented throughout Scripture of a “circumcision of the flesh versus a circumcision of the heart”? Luke 3:8 / Romans 9:6-8 Romans 2:28-29 / Deuteronomy 30:6 / Jeremiah 31:31-34 (circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not in the letter) Romans 8:1-17 1 Cor 7:19 2 Cor 3:3-6 Galatians 5:2-6 (in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love) Galatians 6:12-15 (neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation) Philippians 3:2-11
I would ask Protestants this: If you were in the devil's shoes before the Reformation and you wanted to attack the Catholic Church from within, wouldn't you tempt people to take away central tenets of the Faith? Just pretend for a second that, as the devil, you know the following to be true: the Eucharist is really Jesus, Confession works, We can lose our Salvation, Knowing Mary is important to knowing Jesus, Angels and Saints can present our prayers to God, etc. All of those would be amazing to know if they were real! If you were the evil one, wouldn't you try to make people believe that none of those teachings were real? Because that is exactly what happened. Now, I want to be clear that I am NOT saying Protestant Churches of today are evil. They are not the ones who were Catholic and turned away. They have many of the truths of Christianity. So I'm really just talking about the original Reformation.
I guess for some protestants that are particularly low church, they would think all those physical implications took away from the spiritual and replaced them with superstition. Following church history, that would mean Satan won over the church until pretty recently, for even Calvin and Luther didn't deny the efficacy of the sacraments.
I would partially agree as a Lutheran. The total and subtle destruction and gutting of efficaciousness of the sacraments leads many to lack of assurance. But the claims about ‘knowing Mary as important to knowing Jesus” and “saints and angels can intercede for us” the Protestant sees as utter heresy and idol worship as there is no scriptural basis. Along with how can one submit to pope as authority (moreso than scripture), if many popes have proven themselves to be wicked men and have instituted wicked beliefs and policies while concealing truth from the masses?
@erikrose7041 so there are some misunderstandings there. 1. We don't believe that know Mary is as important as knowing Jesus. Mary is another avenue through which we can know Christ better, in the same way that I got closer to my wife after meeting her parents. The idea that Saints and angels can intercede for us is in the Catholic Bible. Unfortunately, Luther removed books in his translation that support it. I Yes, there have been wicked; Jesus did not tell Peter he would make him perfect as the leader of the Church. The only papal authority that matters is when he creates new dogma, which is only done after so much evidence has amassed for something that the Church already believes it anyway. For example, Catholics prayed a mystery of the Rosary about the Assumption for hundreds of years before the Pope declared it a dogma.
@@erikrose7041 “saints and angels can intercede for us” is seen explicitly in scripture in Revelation 5:8 (and to argue otherwise is "utter heresy"),not to mention all the other implicit mentions within scripture. There's also a difference between saying "knowing Mary IS AS important as knowing Jesus" and "knowing Mary AS important as knowing Jesus." The first statement (which @ToddJambon did not make) would be problematic. The second is not inherently problematic and is indeed as old as Christianity itself. It's even scriptural if you understand the role of the Queen Mother (Gebirah) in the Davidic kingdom -- she was the important figure with the king, not his wife; she's always mentioned in conjunction with the king when the king is introduced in scripture; she sits at the king's right hand; and she acts as intercessor for the people with the king, something we see Mary doing in scripture at Cana. Jesus sits on David's throne as the eternal king of the eternal, divine kingdom; therefore, the Davidic kingdom was a *type* of the heavenly kingdom, and the old cannot be greater than the new, so therefore the Queen Mother of the new (divine) kingdom cannot be lesser than the Queen Mothers of the earthly form of the kingdom.
The Protestant positions is built upon the atonement as revealed in Scripture. We are deeply sorry that you just don't like Christianity enough to care what God has revealed.
Why did Jesus do such a shitty job that only 1400 years later did people actually figure out what he meant, and those people that figured it out could consolidate a church around the correct interpretation? Protestantism is built on the denial of Jesus, half the time they don't even have an altar it's some random guy acting as God. Why was Jesus so terrible at establishing the correct interpretation of his own words
Hi, R. I'm afraid I don't quite understand. Could you clarify? I can imagine that you are not Christian and hold these minutia debates in contempt. I can imagine that you are Protestant and hold Catholic and Orthodox positions in contempt, as demonstrated by their effective admission of defeat implied in their abandoning the field of debate as soon as "no avail" is raised. I can imagine that you are Catholic or Orthodox and hold Protestant positions in contempt, as demonstrated by the invalidation of Christianity inherent in the claim that Christ's flesh is of no avail.
@@johnbrowne2170 Correct. More often if possible. Read John 6:52-58 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.”
@@johnbrowne2170 Not at all. Natural religion recognises God and the duty of religion without benefit of any revelation whatever. Monotheistic religions express understandings which provide for their adherents both to believe in God and to follow Him with varying degrees of correctness and completeness. The same can be said for the various versions of Christianity. What Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism bring to the table is a more correct and more complete understanding of revelation in which God gives, not only His laws, not only His truth, not only His grace, not only His Spirit, bu Himself wholly.
I'm protestant, but I'm Lutheran, so I believe in real presence too, and I just gotta say, the more and more I talk to and learn about other protties, the closer and closer I get to mother mary... lol
Great video. I wish you also touched “do this in remembrance of me” which bugged me for a long time until I found out that it doesn’t mean “for you to remember me”. It’s more like: “offer this remembrance sacrifice to remind God the Father of Me (His new Covenant) where He promised to spare us of His condemnation and free us from slavery of sin”.
Now you people are inserting things, he simply said do this in remembrance of me, not in for remembrance of the father. So during the lord supper when Jesus was yet to go to the cross what were they eating?
@@adjoa-anima , if you believe that Jesus is the Word of God incarnate then you should be able to deduce that time and space (part of creation) is part of his domain. The Passover sacrifice was a remembrance sacrifice for the old covenant. Jesus, The Lamb, is the sacrifice of the new Covenant. Eating the flesh of the lamb of the old sacrifice wasn’t symbolic or optional, the Jews knew that. So when Jesus said do this in remembrance of me, everybody at the table knew what it meant. In today’s world everybody will hear those words and think they mean “to remember me”, however, that’s not what He meant in that context. I think that “in remembrance” means “in honor”, and what you do in honor is the offering of a real sacrifice in that context not a symbolic gesture.
@@AlbinoCordeiroJunior well the Jews did not eat bread in place of the lamb, but Jesus choose to give us something else in his place when we eat we should remember the price he paid for us, so why would Jesus eat his own flesh and drink his own blood what was the need for him to partake in the lord's supper if it is meant for our salvation?
@@adjoa-anima in the Bible it doesn’t say He ate it but the theologians will tell you that he was qualified to be both high Priest and perfect sacrificial Lamb. That was a whole thing of the Law. They were always trying to find a perfect priest to go in the temple and make a sacrifice of a perfect lamb. Jesus fulfilled both roles. Really, I think “in remembrance of me” means offer a real sacrifice in honor of me, not “do a little theatrics to remember me”. Until 500 years ago Christians all believed in the real presence. Even Martin Luther did.
@@AlbinoCordeiroJunior not the apostles though, they didn't quite see it that way, Paul reported in one of his letters that some people wouldn't eat at home and only to fill themselves with the lord's supper, he advised against it and excluded a number of people who are not in right standing with the lord. It telling that they saw it as a feast not Jesus' literal flesh and blood, just the old testament had a feast that God asked the Israelites to continue observing, after the exodus the angel of death was no longer coming to kill those who don't have blood at their door, they did it to remember what the lord had done, likewise our new covenant has a feast which we are to observe to remember what he did on the cross for us, Jesus doesn't die and give us his flesh and blood every time we go for the lord's supper, the lord's supper is not what will give life to our bodies but it's the words of Jesus which are life and spirit and we are to feed on the word daily
I originally thought that this was gonna be saying that the accidents of bread and wine is of no avail and what is crucial is the deeper spiritual and metaphysical reality of Christ’s soul literally being imbued into the bread and wine. I thought it was saying that the outside appearance isn’t what should be the focus but the reality of what those things really are, this video is so interesting I like his explanation a lot it’s different than I expected
The beauty of the accidents is that they ALSO communicate to us the reality of Christ flesh and blood. Like even when believing transubstantiation, the appearances are still symbols point us to the truth of Christ… Unleavened bread that looks like manna, where many ancient cultures consider bread equal to life… Where alcohol cleansed and wine mixed with water was a clean way to drink life-giving water… Like it’s totally fitting that God chose these elements to trans-substantiate.
“It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh(Human Reason) is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit (Spiritual/Supernatural) and life.” John 6:63 What Jesus was talking about in John 6 was something Supernatural, it can't be understood using Human Reason it's... " of no avail." That is why the people walked away, they were looking at it through the lens of the carnal mind. If you look at John 6 through the lens of the Supernatural it can be understood. The Eucharist is something Supernatural.
There's one more hint in verse 30 where Jews expect something visible like the manna, and Jesus in verse 40 replies that to be saved we must SEE Him and believe in Him: "What sign are you going to give us then, so that we may SEE it and believe you? ... This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who SEE the Son and believe in him may have eternal life". So seeing Jesus in the Eucharist is key. It is also necessary for worthy reception of the Communion. And we can see Jesus only if He's physically present, ie. if He has a Flesh!
The meaning of "the flesh is of no help at all" is clarified in 8:15 when Jesus says to the Jews, "you judge according to the flesh," meaning, "your assessment of who I am and what I am saying is according to earthly human understanding (the flesh)." When Jesus says, "the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life," he is contrasting spiritual understanding with mere human fleshly understanding.
As a Baptist, I never understood why people were so passionate about this. I never thought Jesus miraculously turning bread and wine into his body and blood makes us horrible cannibals. I just thought that He is with us either way. Your explanation helped me understand why both sides care.
If Protestants interpret this verse as "the flesh is of no avail" to discount the Eucharist, they also are discounting Jesus' flesh dying on the cross. PERHAPS that's why they hide the body being on their version of the cross???
If they say it is a metaphor, then John 6:63 "If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" is ALSO a metaphor. But Jesus is talking about His ascension which is, as they all agree, literal. If "eat my flesh" is symbolic, then so is the ascension.
Really good point. That is the verse directly before the flesh is of no avail passage. It really trips them up when you focus on that one. How does the ascension fit into this framework if Jesus is not being literal. At least in a sacramental way.
Excellent, an important point that Protestantism fails to appreciate! Jesus & Mary True Body & Blood Faith & Reason Sacred Tradition & Sacred Scripture Jesus’ Body & Cross Mortal & venial sin Faith & Grace Etc
PERSONAL NOTES: 00:00 Does this verse disprove the Eucharist? 00:10 Is eating His Flesh a metaphor? 2:45 Problem #1: It Renders John 6 incoherent (Consider John 6:63 in comparison to John 6:53 - 56) 04:55 Problem #2: It Strips the cross it’s meaning (Consider John 6:51) 06:10 Problem 3: It logically denies bodily resurrection (Consider 1 Corinthians 15:42-45) 8:58 The Devil, The Eucharist, and Cannibalism (Galatians 5:19-21) 10:07 Flesh refers to Unaided Humanity. Spirit refers to Divine Assistance
Very interested to see a video on Gnosticism. I'm knew to the term as a protestant for 5 years converting to Catholicism. But it sounds a lot like what I was taught in my discipleship program (Spurgeon was regarded very highly there as well, had no idea he was a Gnostic)
Great and helpful video. I also found the commentary St Cyril of Alexandria helpful as well as he used the couple of verses before it to explain verse 63. This is long but a good read: John 6:61-62 (NASB95) 61 “But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62 “What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?” (Cyril of Alexandria) John 6:62: “From utter ignorance, certain of those who were being taught by Christ the Saviour, were offended at His words. For when they heard Him saying, Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, ye have no life in you (John 6:53), they supposed that they were invited to some brutish savageness, as though they were enjoined to eat flesh and to sup up blood, and were constrained to do things which are dreadful even to hear. For they knew not the beauty of the Mystery, and that fairest economy devised for it. Besides this, they full surely reasoned thus with themselves, How can the human body implant in us everlasting life, what can a thing of like nature with ourselves avail to immortality? Christ therefore understanding their thoughts (for all things are naked and bared to His eyes (Heb 4:13), heals them again, leading them by the hand manifoldly to the understanding of those things of which they were yet ignorant. Very foolishly, sirs, (saith He) are ye offended at My Words. For if ye cannot yet believe, albeit oftentimes instructed, that My Body will infuse life into you, how will ye feel (He saith) when ye shall see It ascend even into heaven? For not only do I promise that I will ascend even into heaven itself, that ye may not again say, How? but the sight shall be in your eyes, shaming every gainsayer. If then ye shall see (saith He) the Son of Man ascending into heaven, what will ye say then? For ye will be convicted of no slight folly. For if ye suppose that My Flesh cannot put life into you, how can It ascend into heaven like a bird? For if It cannot quicken, because its nature is not to quicken, how will It soar in air, how mount up into the heavens? for this too is equally impossible for flesh. But if it ascends contrary to nature, what is to hinder it from quickening also, even though its nature be not to quicken, of its own nature? For He Who made That heavenly which is from earth, will render it Lifegiving also, even though its nature be to decay, as regards its own self? We must observe how He doth not endure to be divided into two christs, according to the uncounsel of some. For He keepeth Himself every way undivided after the Incarnation. For He says that the Son of man ascendeth up where He was before, although the earthly Body was not above before this, but only the Word by Itself before His Concurrence with flesh. Well then hath Paul put in his epistles. One Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor 8:6). For He is One Son, both before the Incarnation and after the Incarnation, and we do not reckon His own Body as alien from the Word. Wherefore He says that the Word which came down from above from heaven is also Son of Man. For He was made Flesh, as the blessed Evangelist saith (John 1:14), and did not pass into flesh by change (for He is without turning and Unchangeable by Nature as God) but as it were dwelling in His own Temple, I mean that from the Virgin, and made Man in very deed. But by saying that He will ascend up where He was before also, He gives His hearers to understand that He hath comedown from heaven. For thus it was like that they understanding the force of the argument, should give heed to Him not as to a man only, but should at length know that He is God the Word in the Flesh, and believe that His Body too is Life-giving.” John 6:63 “It is the Spirit That quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.” “It is not unreasonably (He says) that ye have clothed the flesh in no power of giving life. For when the nature of the flesh is considered alone and by itself, plainly it is not life-giving. For never will ought of things that are, give life, but rather it hath itself need of Him who is mighty to quicken. But when the Mystery of the Incarnation is carefully considered, and ye then learn who it is who dwelleth in this Flesh, ye will then surely feel (He says) unless you would accuse the Divine Spirit Itself also, that It can impart life, although of itself the flesh profiteth not a whit. For since it was united to the Life-giving Word, it hath become wholly Life-giving, hastening up to the power of the higher Nature, not itself forcing unto its own nature Him who cannot in any wise be subjected. Although then the nature of the flesh be in itself powerless to give life, yet will it inwork this, when it has the Life-working Word, and is replete with His whole operation. For it is the Body of that which is by Nature Life, not of any earthly being, as to whom that might rightly hold, The flesh proflteth nothing. For not the flesh of Paul (for instance) nor yet of Peter, or any other, would work this in us; but only and specially that of our Saviour Christ in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:9). For verily it would be a thing most absurd that honey should infuse its own quality into things which naturally have no sweetness, and should have power to transfer into itself that wherewith it is mingled, and that the Life-giving Nature of God the Word should not be able to elevate to Its own good that Body which It indwelt. Wherefore as to all other things the saying will be true, that the flesh profiteth nothing; but as to Christ alone it holdeth not, by reason that Life, that is the Only-Begotten, dwelt therein. And He calls Himself Spirit, for God is a Spirit (John 4:24) and as the blessed Paul saith, For the Lord is the Spirit (2 Cor 3:17). And we do not say these things, as taking away from the Holy Ghost His Proper Existence; but as He calls Himself Son of man, since He was made Man, so again He calls Himself Spirit from His Own Spirit. For not Other than He is His Spirit. “The words that I have spoken unto you, they are Spirit and are life.” He filleth whole His Own Body with the Life-giving operation of the Spirit. For He now calls the Flesh Spirit, not turning It aside from being Flesh: but because by reason of Its being perfectly united to Him, and now endued with His whole Life-giving Power, It ought to be called Spirit too. And no wonder, for be not offended at this. For if he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit (1 Cor 6:17), how shall not His Own Body rather be called One with Him? Something of this kind then He means in the passage before us: I perceive from your reasonings within you (saith He) that ye foolishly imagine that I am telling you, that the body of earth is of its own nature life-giving: but this is not the drift of My words. For My whole exposition to you was of the Divine Spirit and of Eternal Life. For it is not the nature of the flesh which renders the Spirit life-giving, but the might of the Spirit maketh the Body life-giving. The words then which I have discoursed with you, are spirit, that is spiritual and of the Spirit, and are life, i. e., life-giving and of that which is by Nature Life. And not as repudiating His Own Flesh does He say these things, but as teaching us what is the truth. For what we have just said, this will we repeat for profit sake. The nature of the flesh cannot of itself quicken (for what more is there in Him That is God by Nature?) yet will it not be conceived of in Christ as Alone and by Itself: for it has united to it the Word, Which is by Nature Life. When therefore Christ calls it life-giving, He does not testify the Power of quickening to It so much, as to Himself, or to His Spirit. For because of Him is His Own Body too Life-giving, since He re-elemented It to His Own Power. But the ‘how,’ is neither to be apprehended by the mind, nor spoken by the tongue, but honoured in silence and faith above understanding. But that the Son too is often called by the name of Spirit by the God-inspired Scriptures, we shall know by what is subjoined. The blessed John then writes of Him, This is He That came by water and Spirit, Jesus Christ, not by water only, but by water and the Spirit: and it is the Spirit That beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth (1 John 5:6). Lo, he calleth the Spirit Truth, albeit Christ openly crieth out, I am the Truth (John 14:6). Paul again writes to us saying, They that are in the flesh cannot please God: but ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you, but if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. But if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness (Rom 8:8-10). Lo again herein having proved that the Spirit of God dwelleth in us, he hath said that Christ Himself is in us. For inseparable from the Son is His Spirit, according to the count of Identity of Nature, even though He be conceived of as having a Personal Existence. Therefore He often names indifferently, sometimes the Spirit, sometimes Himself.”
I would like to offer one more quote from St. Augustine which directly addresses the interpretation of John 6:53-64. “But does the flesh give life? Our Lord Himself, when He was speaking in praise of this same earth, said, “It is the Spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing.”...But when our Lord praised it, He was speaking of His own flesh, and He had said, “Except a man eat My flesh, he shall have no life in him” (John 6:54). Some disciples of His, about seventy, were offended, and said, “This is an hard saying, who can hear it?” And they went back, and walked no more with Him. It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said to themselves, He says not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learned that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learned. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and says unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickens, but the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63). *Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.”* Augustine (Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8).
@@coolcatbaron 😊 If you liked that one, here is another quote which makes crystal clear how Augustine interpreted the "hard saying" of John 6:53-54. *_On Christian Doctrine_** (Book 3)* *"Chap. 16.-Rule for interpreting commands and prohibitions* "24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, "and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; *it is therefore a figure,* enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."
I talk a lot with my brother, who is some measure of Calvinist, about what I refer to as "the sneaky gnosticism in protestant traditions". Would love a long form video about that.
there is another chapter to understand that the Holy Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, read carefully Luke 24 starting from verse 13: These 2 disciples are walking on a long road and the resurrected Jesus appears but they do not recognize him all along this road. And when they arrived home in the evening, they invited Jesus to stay with them because it was late. And Jesus begins to consecrate the bread and gives it to them, then their eyes open but Jesus had already disappeared from their eyes (here there are 2 meanings: eyes of flesh and eyes of faith!) And these 2 disciples after having taken this consecrated bread takes the long, reverse route at night (strength of the Eucharist) to tell others that they have recognized Jesus Christ RESURRECTED through the FRACTION OF THE BREAD!
Joe: I should know this. (I am a priest of 37 years). When I consecrate the Precious Blood the words are, “the Blood … will be poured out for you and for the many …. Why the many and not for all (as a poor ICEL translation once read)? I know Jesus’ words in Mt 26:28 are, “the many.” But why not for all? I know NOT ALL accepted or accept Jesus’ saving Sacrifice. (I may have been taught why in the seminary but I have slept since then 😝! Thank you! Father Fintan
Hello Father Fintan, here are three explanations that I hope you find helpful! God Bless! Why does Jesus say, “for many” (Mark 14:24) (Matthew 20:28). At first, it may seem like Jesus did not die on the cross for everyone, but only a select group of people. So, was Jesus limiting his redemptive grace? There are three main reasons why Jesus says, “for many” and not, for all. First let us make clear that yes Jesus died for all humanity, Jesus redeemed the whole human race. (1 Timothy 2:6). All of humanity has been redeemed, but will all be saved? 1 Timothy 2:4 reads “…God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved…” and Peter says that the Lord is “not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9) God desires all to be saved, but not everyone will accept God’s gift and live according to the grace received. In one sense, the many is for those who accept God’s gift of salvation and live by it. St. Jerome explains it as such, “And he did not say “to give his life as a redemption” for all, but “for many,” that is, for those who wanted to believe.” (“The Fathers of the Church St Jerome Commentary on Matthew, Thomas P. Scheck, pg 229). St. John Chrysostom explains it in the same way, “Why of many, and not of all? Because not all believed. For He died indeed for all” (St. John Chrysostom, Homily on the Epistle to the Hebrews, n. 17) Second, Jesus is referring himself to the Old Testament prophecy of Isaiah 53 which is the chapter of the suffering servant. In the Greek Septuagint the word polli which translates to many, is used three times in the verses 10-12. When Jesus spoke at the last supper about his blood being poured out “for many”, Jesus is making a connection of himself to the suffering servant foreshadowed in Isaiah. Tom Nash explains it well: “Long before his Crucifixion, Jesus indicated that he was the suffering servant who “took our infirmities and bore our diseases” (Matt. 8:17; see Isa. 53:4), becoming more explicit as his ministry progressed (Matt. 17:9-13). Before his final trip to Jerusalem, Jesus made clear that he was the suffering-servant lamb, for he “came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28; Isa. 53:12).” (“The Biblical Roots of the Mass, by Thomas J. Nash, pg 152) “The reference becomes less debatable when, quoting Isaiah 53:12, Jesus goes on to identify himself explicitly at the Last Supper as the suffering servant Isaiah prophesied: “For I tell you that his scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was reckoned with transgressors’; for what is written about me had its fulfilment” (Luke 22:37).” (“The Biblical Roots of the Mass, by Thomas J. Nash, Pg 172) The third reason can be answered by asking the question, who is excluded from Jesus’ death on the cross? As mentioned above, the people that reject salvation are not saved but yet they are all still redeemed. Jesus died for all AND redeemed all. Paul says Jesus died for all (2 Corinthians 5:14-15), so if Jesus died for all humanity, then who is excluded from the many? Is it Hitler? Jeffrey Dahmer? Judas? What about Mary the mother of God since she was sinless? The answer is that Jesus died for all (1 Timothy 2:6) which includes all sinners, and even his blessed Mother. The only person Jesus did not die for was himself.
Here’s a question for my fellow Protestants: if Mary’s tomb isn’t empty, then where are the churches claiming her relics? Because they would be the most important relics we would have, considering that Christ shares his body with her. Joe, are there any sects claiming the relics of Mary?
Eucharistic Rosary: There are five mysteries to meditate on Eucharistic devotion. 1. the wedding feast at Cana (Jesus changes water 💦 into wine 🍷(John2:1-12) 2. multiplication of loaves and fishes (John 6:1-15). 3. the teaching on the bread of life (John 6:22-71). 4. the last supper (John 14:1-1726). 5. the road to Emmaus (John 24:13-35). Rev. Robert Stein wrote A Scriptural Rosary for Eucharistic Devotion.
You just described the way that protestants think about the eucharist. I think that division amongst both sides it a problem of words not a problem of actions.
The “Eucharist” is not what Jesus meant. Unfortunately people misunderstood Jesus and took his words literally and even what he said during the Passover meal before his death wrongly. John 7:37-39, is in a nutshell how we receive the riches of what the Almighty has promised to give us. How do we receive that spiritual life? By being born again, by receiving the Spirit of the Father by faith and repentance and understanding that it is by the Spirit of God that we are connected to Jesus and the Almighty God who is Jesus’s God and Father also (John 20:17), not by taking a piece of bread purporting to be Jesus’s body. What Jesus said in John 6 is all about spiritual things, nothing about food or drink or physical things, nothing happens in the “Eucharist”, it is all in the Spirit of God we are to receive as believers in what Jesus did for us on the cross.
As to the quote from GotQuestions, when reading carefully what Jesus said about the flesh counting for nothing without the Spirit, He says then, that His WORDS are 'spirit'. I believe it resonates so good with worshiping God 'in spirit and truth', an essential verse for protestants. No premeditated liturgy and no material objects used in worship. Just listening to the Word of God, meditating on it and talking about it. And yet, at the Last Supper the Twelve didn't feed themselves with the Word of God, if that was what Jesus meant in J 6:53-57. They did a real act of eating what looked like physical bread and were instructed to repeat that act in the future, and they knew it was something of great importance. If the bread in John is the Word of Jesus, then why having physical bread, at all? The flesh counts for nothing... Jesus could have given them the last, most important teaching, instead.
We (I am Protestant) don't believe that the "eating the living bread" in John 6 is "meditating on Jesus words/teachings," as Joe erroneously says above. We believe that "feeding on Christ's flesh and drinking his blood" in John 6 is to feast on Christ by faith, believing in him for our salvation. It is another picture of our receiving his life at new birth. And just like when you get married, you make your vows and then live them out, so we then live out our faith in Christ. The Lord's Supper is part of living out our faith; it is a celebration of our salvation, a proclamation of his death, and a participation in his body and blood spiritually. And we are to do this until he comes. Transubstantiation isn't actually the issue here. The real problem with the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is that it effectively ignores all the verses in the chapter which say that it is by *believing* *in* *Jesus* that we have eternal life. (Jn 6:29, 35, 40, 47) Believing is replaced with physical ingestion of the Eucharist, and the true Gospel is concealed instead of illustrated. Because eating the Eucharist is thought to be the *means* to eternal life (6:54) instead of belief, many Catholics never truly receive Jesus spiritually because they believe it has been accomplished in their Eucharist participation. This is a serious loss.
Jesus commanded an unbloody REPRESENTATION of Calvary Jn 6 51-58 with the priest in persona Christi acting as Jesus the high priest offering Him as victim to His Father. When the priest says, MY body MY blood, it is not that of the priest but that of Jesus. Yes, Christ died once for all our sins, but He commanded perpetual propitiatory sacrifice for our sins which the early church commenced doing. Jesus has forgiven our sins, however, reparation still needs to be made via the Holy Mass Read Mal 1:11 with gentiles offering pure sacrifice at all times in all places with the CC doing exactly that daily in most parishes around the world. The words daily bread, in their original language, refer to supernatural bread or Eucharist! If you don’t believe in His Real Presence, investigate Eucharistic miracles, msgs from God which science can’t explain with the same AB blood type & living heart tissue. Visit Carlos Acutis Why do Satanists steal consecrated hosts from Catholic parishes which they desecrate at sacrilegious black masses?
@@jmferris542 good grief what a strawman. At no point has the Catholic Church ever encouraged replacing belief with ingestion of the Eucharist - eating the Eucharist is part of our faith. It’s how we can encounter God physically and another way in which He Unites Himself to us. In fact if we didn’t believe that Christ is our Saviour then we mustn’t eat the Eucharist because to do so would be to fail to discern the body and so eat and drink our own judgment. Also you mentioned marriage. When husband and wife are married they join in Spirit, but also in Flesh in the marital embrace. If marriage is an earthly representation of Christ’s marriage to His Church, then the marital embrace (in the flesh) is a representation of receiving Holy Communion where we are physically United as one with Jesus, as well as in Spirit. And Jesus never said to merely ‘feed on me in faith’. He said to eat his flesh and drink his blood in visceral terms
@@harrymoore9358 I understand your concern. Just to clarify, I agree that the Catholic Church has not by its official dogma replaced "eating the Eucharist" for "believing in Jesus." But it is in the CC's interpretation of John 6 where this replacement occurs. Certainly many Catholics do personally trust in and believe in Jesus alone for their salvation. But I also know many Christians who say that when they were Catholic, they understood verse 54 ("whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life") to mean that regular receiving of the Eucharist results in eternal life. And that is perfectly consistent with the Catholic interpretation of the verse. So the unfortunate consequence of this misinterpretation of John 6 is that, unlike you, many DO trust in the Eucharist itself, rather than the saving faith that John 6 actually pictures. In their case, the sign usurps the thing signified. And this is the tragic loss I was describing. We actually agree with much of what you said about the Eucharist. We believe it is *truly* participation in the body and blood of Christ. And the importance of the Eucharist in our relationship with Christ we also agree with. But we do not worship it. If you compare verse 40 and verse 54 in John chapter 6, the two sentences are identical. So you can see that "believing in the Son" is equivalent to "feeding on his flesh and drinking his blood." The whole chapter is about believing on the Son. The whole book of John is about believing in the Son. This is what results in eternal life. If you interpret the John 6 "feeding" as transubstantiated Eucharist, then you must say that verse 53 means, "unless you receive the transubstantiated Eucharist, you have no spiritual life at all." So then it is only logical for many to trust in receiving the sacrament instead of trusting in Christ himself. It is important to take an interpretation and test it with its logical conclusions.
@@jmferris542 thank you for the response. I think this is one of those topics where we could end up speaking past each other in some sense. But we ought to try. I can’t say I’ve met any Catholics on my end who think that they are saved just by eating the Eucharist, independent of Faith and a life lived in Christ’s Grace and good works. I’ve also seen nothing in the catechism to encourage such a stance but I’m willing to have a look if you have a particular paragraph in mind. I do however think that for those who have faith and sufficient knowledge that receiving the Eucharist is a necessary pre-requisite for salvation because Christ Himself commanded us to adhere to this channel of His saving Grace. But that’s not to say that anyone who eats it will automatically be saved even if living a life of faithlessness/grave sin. On the contrary that would damage their soul. Much like how God commanded the Israelites to consume the Passover - it really was the sacrifice’s flesh they ate, and had they been living a life of unrepentant sin then it would not benefit them, in fact the pretence may have only angered God more (like when God talks about worthless sacrifices), but if instead they had refused to eat then their friendship with God would also be severed as they would not be obeying His command. Faith, a life lived under the law of Christ, and the subsequent reception of the Sacraments which are part of that life and reception of Grace are all necessary for salvation. The Eucharist neither adds to God’s saving Grace, substitutes it, nor detracts from it. It IS the saving Grace of God because it is the reception of our expiation - the crucified and risen body, blood, soul, and divinity of the Lord Himself. I also see your point on verses 40 and 54. They are very similar - but one doesn’t have to read that as the Eucharist is merely feeding on faith in a metaphorical and symbolic way, but rather that the Eucharist is part of believing in the Son and that both are necessary - belief and the consumption of the celestial body which is part of that belief. When I read the Church fathers too I struggle to see this any other way.
Christs body cannot Corrupt! Christ is the second person of The Holy Trinity! Gods Holy Body! True Lamb of God offered daily for our ongoing conversion. And what an EXTRAORDINARY GRACEFILLED EXPERIENCE TO UNDERTAKE! If the protestant soul new this, they Could actually die of joy when they partook of this Mystery!
To reject sacramental theology, as many Protestants do, is to ignore centuries of church history in which all Christians believed in the sacramental function of certain rituals, particularly the Eucharist, that they are true means of receiving saving Grace from God.
Jesus was also following up on what he had said to the crowd before knowing that they were looking for him not for his teaching for but for bodily nourishment he had provided for them when he multiplied the bread and the fish. They were not looking for spiritual nourishment but for natural food to satisfy their hunger. Jesus wanted them rather to hunger for righteousness and he would give them bread from heaven being himself that bread/true bread that came down from heaven and gives life to the world. He asked them not to work for food that perishes but instead for the food that endures to eternal life which is his own flesh which he would give for the life of the world. In other words, Jesus was teaching them that food for the life of the spirit was more important than that for the body/flesh.
Funny, just read this verse in my own reading and it made so much sense reading it in context again. So much so I laughed at the thought of taking it as most modern Protestants do.
As a protestant I affirm and hold to true presence. I also hold that [Matthew 18:20] "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." is true.
@@georgwagner937 Only the Catholic & Orthodox Churches have an unbroken line of apostolic succession going back to the apostles. Clergy outside those Churches don’t have the power to confect the Real True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist & are therefore not “churches”, more like synagogue with prayer & teaching!
@@geoffjs clergy with apostolic succession is necessary because only clergy with apostolic succession confects the real true presence of christ in the eucharist. you think clergy "confects" the real true presence of christ in the eucharist? Is that catholic doctrine or your understanding?
When people think John 6 is metaphorical, I came to realize that it would make no sense because it would be a 2-step metaphor. I had to create a term to refer to it, since no one makes 2-step metaphors. If Jesus said the bread is his body, and that was the entire metaphor, then we would be trying to figure out how bread exhibits similarities with his body (and not necessarily the other way around). But people say it's the Word of God that we should consume. But the Word of God is NOT in this metaphor. One has to go the next step by saying Jesus is the Word made flesh. Thus, bread => body => Word of God. No one in their right mind would expect people to follow a 2-step metaphor! He would obviously want to clarify as he went along, rather than stepping things up over and over and tossing in some line at the end to undo everything he just taught them. It makes NO SENSE as a metaphor.
When we speak of Jesus’s sacrifice, are we being figurative? I ask, because consuming the offering is part of what sacrifice entails. To suggest « my flesh » is figurative is to undermine the truth of the Cross.
From the Rev. George Leo Haydock Bible Commentary: "Ver. 64. The flesh profiteth nothing. Dead flesh, separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to say, man’s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us. - Are spirit and life. By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace and life. These words sufficiently correct the gross and carnal imagination of these Capharnaites, that he meant to give them his body and blood to eat in a visible and bloody manner, as flesh, says St. Augustine, is sold in the market, and in the shambles;[3] but they do not imply a figurative or metaphorical presence only. The manner of Christ’s presence is spiritual and under the outward appearances of bread and wine; but yet he is there truly and really present, by a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his body and blood, which truly and really become our spiritual food, and are truly and really received in the holy sacrament. - The flesh[4] of itself profiteth nothing, not even the flesh of our Saviour Christ, were it not united to the divine person of Christ. But we must take care how we understand these words spoken by our Saviour: for it is certain, says St. Augustine, that the word made flesh, is the cause of all our happiness. (Witham) - When I promise you life if you eat my flesh, I do not wish you to understand this of that gross and carnal manner, of cutting my members in pieces: such ideas are far from my mind: the flesh profiteth nothing. In the Scriptures, the word flesh is often put for the carnal manner of understanding any thing. If you wish to enter into the spirit of my words, raise your hearts to a more elevated and spiritual way of understanding them. (Calmet) - The reader may consult Des Mahis, p. 165, a convert from Protestantism, and who has proved the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist in the most satisfactory manner, from the written word. Where he shows that Jesus Christ, speaking of his own body, never says the flesh, but my flesh: the former mode of expression is used to signify, as we have observed above, a carnal manner of understanding any thing."
When Jesus said, "it is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail" (I'm paraphrasing).. He is speaking of the Spirit of the words he is speaking when He says His flesh is true food and blood true drink. Because the flesh (our flesh) cannot give us understanding, the Spirit (Holy Spirit) can. It is the Spirit that gives understanding ❤
There's also when Jesus says, "Do this in memory of me" The Lords supper is a memorial to His life and death. That is enough to understand that the Eucharist, eating His body and flesh is unbiblical. His food is spiritual not literally.
Perhaps you could answer a couple of questions. 1) Vss. 53-56 if taken alone means that if an atheist partakes of the Eucharist, he/she becomes a Christian that will be raised at the last day, then read vss. 64 implies that faith not ritual alone saves a person, is that Catholic doctrine? 2) We all know what happens to food when we eat it, it is digested and turns into excrement, does the same thing happen to the bread and wine of the Eucharist once consumed?
"1) Vss. 53-56 if taken alone means that if an atheist partakes of the Eucharist, he/she becomes a Christian that will be raised at the last day, then read vss. 64 implies that faith not ritual alone saves a person, is that Catholic doctrine? " The Eucharist must be approached in faith and free from mortal sin, which are grave sins that separate one from Christ's Church. To do so would be a form of sacrilege. As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11: 27 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. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why Catholics do not permit none believers and those Christians not in communion with the Catholic Church to eat or drink of the Eucharist. It is dangerous! "2) We all know what happens to food when we eat it, it is digested and turns into excrement, does the same thing happen to the bread and wine of the Eucharist once consumed?" The Eucharist remains the body and blood of Christ so long as it retains the form of bread and wine. As it is digested, it loses the form of bread and wine, and the the real presence of Christ is no longer there. It normally takes 10 or 15 minutes for the body to digest it. So no, what is excremented is no longer the body and blood of Christ.
The verse in discussion sugests that the bread of the Eucharist becomes the Body of Christ through the invocation of the Holy Spirit. Matter or flesh don't account for this miracle by themselves.
POLYCARP (Apostolic Brethren) was the Bishop/Overseer of the Church of Smyrna who was martyrdom in 155 A.D. ... The word BISHOP (overseers/head) was not a Literal HIERARCHY ORDER, but a Spiritual/Religious TASK (Duty) in the Early Churches in Asia Minor of the 1st Cent. A.D. Christ Jesus said, "The Son of God/Man did not come to be SERVED but to SERVE."... "Anyone who wants to be a Leader (Head/Bishop) should be the Servant of all." (ref. Matt. 20:26-28)... The R.C.C. created a LITERAL HIERARCHICAL ORDER combined with Political/State Order (Kings, Magistrates, Templars, Inquisitions, etc.) starting in the 4th Cent. A.D., patterned from the Pagan Roman Empire... Facts and Truth, Historically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen...
THE LAMB 🐑 OF GOD: John the Baptist called Jesus the “lamb of God” (John 1:29 & 1:36). Jesus is the pascal lamb 🐑 to be sacrificed. The Passover tradition started when Moses and the Israelites sacrificed an unblemished lamb 🐑 . In order to have the angel of death 💀 to Passover them, THEY HAD TO EAT THE SACRIFICIAL LAMB 🐑 (Exodus 12:8).
No symbol, literal. And he supplies his body (real) as bread. This IS MY BODY and his blood (wine) this IS my blood. This destroys their other objection that He can't give us His body to eat. HE DOES.
the 1st mention of Judas' Betrayal was here, when the people were doubting and leaving Jesus. Commentators propose that this is what broke the camel's back for Judas, who must have thought that Jesus was a looney who obviously wasn't the prophecied Deliverer of the Jews.
Definitely, 100% need a video on how gnosticism has crept into modernity and protestantism.
Just look at old hymns and spirituals, like “I’ll fly away, O glory, I’ll fly away. When I die, Hallelujah by and by, I’ll fly away.” Of course they profess belief in the general resurrection, but the Protestant instinct seems to be to lean toward leaving the bad old body. Of course, it’s impossible to generalize too much because there are myriad protestantisms.
@@stephenjohnson7915I don't really see that particular view being emphasized too much, and I'm not too sure how you're getting that idea from that hymn. Even the rapture folks believe they will be taken up body and soul.
@@benjaminwarsocki1663 It's one thing to explicitly profess certain beliefs and another to implicitly believe things, whether you know it or not. That's why there were councils to define so many dogmas of the faith that may seem to some as needlessly intricate and complex. The details really do matter.
@@sakamotosan1887 this definitely the case of the Marian dogmas. You could say you believe in certain things, but if you misapply the application, it can mess up the implicit belief in the underlying thing.
Do you believe that we have eternal life in Christ? Then Mary and the Saints are not dead.
Do you believe in the body of Christ and that we are one in Christ? And that we can and should intercede for one another? Then why would we stop when we get to heaven?
@@vinciblegaming6817 Exactly. The standard Protestant argument seems to be that because it isn't written in the Bible anywhere that they can hear our prayers despite acknowledging that they are indeed alive in Christ, therefore they cannot hear our prayers and we should not ask for their intercessions. It's built on baseless assumptions and arguments from silence. Pointing to the "great cloud of witnesses" doesn't do any good either, despite seemingly being very clear. Some people are really just blind and refuse to see. All we can do is pray. It is God who shows people the truth, we cannot convince people in their hearts.
I'm dealing with this with my parents currently. I try to explain how authority works and that the Bible doesn't interpret itself, but there is a trump card that my mom plays: The Holy Spirit. By virtue of being a believer, one has the Holy Spirit, thus one is guided in reading the Scriptures and cannot be led astray. When pointing out that this leads many people to many different conclusions, all I get is a shrug and an obstinate refusal to see the logic of my position. It is endlessly frustrating.
I left the Catholic church many years ago when verse 63 was pointed out to me by a Protestant preacher, that Jesus was explaining that he was speaking metaphorically in the preceding verses. All these years later, I am seeing that it was an incorrect interpretation of that verse. This video was the exact thing I needed to watch to solidify my decision to come "home". I had to humble myself greatly. It takes humility to actually seek the truth by seriously weighing both sides of a point of view, rather than just trying to prove that we are right.
Welcome home. We missed you.
Amen! Takes courage to do what you are doing. It can't be easy to turn your back on this. God bless you!
Welcome home! ( At the age of 38 I came home to The Catholic Church after being raised in the Anglican ciommunion .)
Your point about humility is spot on. On the Internet the prevailing attitude far too often seems a desire to win an argument rather than to seek truth
Let us all strive to be "meek and humble of heart ".
want to se all the pro0tetant objections against the Eucharist go up in smoke. Best and most entertaining video Iv ever seen on the eucharist
ruclips.net/video/f-jinF-O3fM/видео.html
Don’t do it. Read my comments before doing anything rash.
Went to my first Mass Sunday.
I've been trying to pinpoint exactly what I was feeling during Mass. It was a mix of excitement and nervousness-the kind of feeling you get when you're about to meet someone you've always longed to meet but are unsure of how it will go. Then, out of nowhere, as the Eucharist was about to be presented, I started crying and couldn’t stop. The emotion was even more intense than I can describe, but that's the closest I can get to explaining it.
Please do an episode on Gnosticism and its connection to reformed theology
God bless you!!!🙏🏻🙏🏻
I fully understand what you’re saying. God is so good!!
Welcome to your eternal home.
Beautiful. Sometimes when I get close to scratching the surface of understanding about the Eucharist it is overwhelming for me as well. To think the creator of the universe loves us so much he became like us and then gives himself freely to us in the Eucharist so that we may be United to him in the most intimate way. Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof. But only say the word and my soul shall be healed!
Also if you enjoy reading check out Jesus and the Jewish roots of the Eucharist by brant pitre. Amazing book.
@@johnbrion4565 That's a wonderful book. He also did an hour-long video on the subject, which is brilliant: ruclips.net/video/P45BHDRA7pU/видео.htmlsi=_hvKXaIQgS7Zxi5H
I remember being a Protestant last year and trying to die on this hill. And, over the course of many RUclips comment section arguments, coming to terms with the fact that it really doesn't prove much of anything. Catholicism is very humbling
Wait, so there are more people that change through comments?
It is humbling.
Yesss!!!! Submitting to the Church is the same as submitting to Christ... it is his body!! It may not be exactly what I believe or want to believe at first...
@@irok1 The reasoning, and historical references. As well as source materials provided.
@@irok1 I wonder if I have edged anyone closer to the truth.
A video on how Protestants and Gnostics share some similar beliefs
If Christs flesh is of no avail and he was only speaking in the spiritual sense, than why did His flesh have to suffer on the cross vs just spiritually suffering alone. If Christ’s Flesh is of no avail, than our human nature has not been joined to God by Jesus sacrifice on the Cross.
This is the big point. Protestant arguments often fail to consider their application to other important areas of theology. Sure, you argued against big bad Rome, but then you denied the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice by doing so.
Well Calvinists think Christ's humanity is locked away someplace, so maybe it makes sense to those Enthusiasts.
Jesus had to be punished in our place. He could not have been punished in a figurative sense.
The cross and the Lord's supper are 2 different realities
@@Maranatha99 After He took the wine He said it is finished, what was finished was the Passover. He wasn't punished, He offered Himself as a sacrifice
@@Maranatha99 penal substitution theory is bad theology.
I'd been an evangelical Protestant my whole life, but recently I've been really considering becoming Catholic (it started with Anglicanism lol). I was already pretty convinced of the true presence view of the Eucharist, but this video was a great confirmation and summary! Definitely gonna hold onto it for when this kind of debate comes up. Thanks, and peace of Christ!
Good for you for being open minded :) The Eucharist is radical, no doubt about that, but isn’t Christianity a radical religion? Indeed it is.
I would encourage you to be cautious of the "plausible arguments" here. If you believe in the true presence, that is fine, but it doesn't actually make logical sense to base that on exegesis of John 6. Did you notice that Joe doesn't quote any of the parallel verses in John 6 where Jesus makes clear that it is believing in him that results in eternal life. Compare John 6:40 with 6:54. They are equivalent statements with exactly the same result (eternal life and being raised on the last day.) This shows that "eating his flesh and drinking his blood" is the spiritual act of believing In Christ for salvation.
Also Joe completely misunderstands how metaphors work. He says that if you believe a metaphor teaches a spiritual truth then you must also believe that the spiritual truth is only metaphorical! So with that error in mind he claims that the Protestants metaphorical view of Jn 6 inadvertently results in the denial the reality of the spiritual body of our resurrection to come. This is a logical fallacy: metaphors teach a spiritual truth but that spiritual truth is the REAL part of the metaphor, not the figurative part. He gets this backward.
This take some thought beyond just hearing and receiving. The Apostle Paul warns us to test doctrine and watch it closely. This does not hold up to close inspection. I do hope you do not give way to the teachings of men which Catholicism will bind you to. We do share many important doctrines, but many others are plausible but unscriptural. (Colossians 2:4)
@@jmferris542 Hi there, I could give you an extensive and in-depth response, but I’ll just recommend a video instead, since he does a better job than me. It’s called “What does “Eat My Flesh” Mean? (PART II)”, and his channel is called “How To Be Christian”, I think you’ll find it not only quite informational, but hard to deny. It’s up to you, but it immensely helped me understand even more :)
@@TrickeryManThanks for the link, I started the video but it will be a bit before I can take the time for it all. But so far his error is that he reads, "and the bread I give for the life of the world is my flesh" = the giving of bread at the Last Supper (his pink area), therefore, the Eucharist. But the giving of his flesh for the life of the world = Jesus giving of his life as a sacrifice on the cross. And the Last Supper likewise is picturing his imminent sacrifice, hence the similarity to John 6. They point to the same reality.
Honestly, the issue isn't really transubstantiation, we all can be convinced of whatever particular level of real presence is in the Eucharist, and if we take it worthily, in true spiritual participation with his body and blood, God is not going to manifest his presence differently according to the convictions of the recipient. We all receive the same benefit - if it is done scripturally.
The real problem with the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is that they effectively ignore and replace true personal faith in Christ (Jn 6:29, 35, 40, 47) with physical ingestion of the Eucharist. Because eating the Eucharist is the means to eternal life (6:54) instead of belief, many Catholics never truly receive Jesus spiritually because they believe it has been done in their Eucharist participation. The Gospel is changed to:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever eats the Eucharist will not perish but have everlasting life."
This is a tragic consequence of reading current Catholic doctrine back into John 6.
@@jmferris542 Jesus said that whoever believes has eternal life (John 6:47). Subsequently, he specified what those people should believe and begins to describe this belief (Jn 6:48-51).
The Jews were offended by his description of this belief because they took it literally to believe that they were literally to eat his body as they ate the manna. (John 6:52)
- in the original, the word "eat" is used to describe literal biting (you can look it up yourself)
Jesus didn't tell them it wasn't literal. He confirmed what offended them - that is, the literal understanding. (John 6:53-58, especially John 6:55)
Subsequently, they became even more offended and said that this is hard to listen to and how can they accept it. (John 6:60)
Subsequently, when Jesus saw them outraged, he confirmed the literal understanding by saying that the flesh can do nothing by itself, but it is the Spirit who gives life to the body and that his words (regarding the literal understanding) are full of the Spirit and life . (John 6:63). What does that mean? He confirmed that in the eucharist (new manna) is Spirit - life.
Unfortunately, he said, not everyone believes. (Jn 6:64) What do not all believe? A literal understanding.
Subsequently, many of his disciples left (Jn 6:66) - why? Because they did not believe in the literal understanding and did not understand it is physical food with a spiritual dimension and therefore gives (eternal) life.
video on Gnosticism? yes, please!
Dans quel sens gnosticisme ? Positive où négative , la gnose est la Connaissance !
Very good. Yes, I would like a video on the Gnostics.
I too
After a process of self-discovery, I've come to understand that my own theological make up may have deep Gnostic tendencies. But I see no reason to be ashamed of this, and I fear a video on Gnosticism by a channel such as this would be little more than aggressive Conversion Therapy
@@ShaneShelldriick You see no problem with sharing beliefs with the early heretics decried as 'anti-Christ'?
Joe, I have to tell you, I love your videos! You seem so kind and understanding while you teach. I have a hard time finding videos to explain topics to my lapsed Catholic, now Protestant, parents; but you explain these things in such a charitable way that I know they won't be offended watching them--thank you!
Thank you! I strive to speak in a way that will make sense to non-Catholics, rather than preaching to the choir. Happy to hear that it's going well!
6:10 I’ve been thinking about this lately. Until about 500 years ago, Christians believed in the real presence in the Eucharist. Until around 200 years ago, even non-Catholic Christians believed Mary was a perpetual virgin. In another 200 years, what other belief will non-Catholic Christians reject? Is the resurrection the next belief to be labeled “symbolic” or “figurative?”
Thanks for that video, Joe!
@MaximilianKolbePrayForUs They don't see this because all they see is what they see right now. They can't see the forest for the trees. They have a complete lack of foresight, as much as they lack sight into the past.
Well said Bro 🤝✌️
Marriage is already being destroyed. Look at how the handle divorce
Oh, i hate the 'resurrection is symbolic' narrative.
Itt is rampant under liberal theologians. Sadly, in catholic institutions too.
@@MrsYasha1984 Really! I didn't know that any Christians were denying the historical accuracy of the literal Resurrection; belief in the Resurrection is what makes us Christians?!
I have another suggestion: Videos going through many major heresies condemned by the Church
The channel Catholic Culture has a series on this
So many heresies, so little time! Book suggestion: "Dissent From The Creed" by Rev. Richard M. Hogan. It details and gives a synopsis of the major and many minor heresies. Strangely, the heresies seem to chronologically follow the sections of the Apostle's Creed.
Or how about the many heresies in the Roman Catholic Church?
"How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" Fast forward to the Last Supper.
Jn 6:66, the first Protestants! With God there are no coincidences!
The Protestant, specifically the Evangelical/ Baptist view of the Eucharist as being nothing but a symbol, it just flies in the face of the earliest discourses from the church fathers. Not only does a clear reading of the text lead to the Catholic /orthodox understanding of the Eucharist, you also have 1,500 years years of Christians holding to this view before anyone developed in alternative explanation and that in the light of a radically unchristian ecclesiology.
Also Luther, Calvin and the Church of England held to the real presence (though not transubstantiation) and Lutherans and the CofE still do.
@@BensWorkshop Presbyterians hold a spiritual-but-not-corporeal presence.
@@llamaalpaca5563 That would seem to make it more symbolic than real.
“It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh(Human Reason) is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit (Spiritual/Supernatural) and life.”
John 6:63
What Jesus was talking about in John 6 was something Supernatural, it can't be understood using Human Reason it's... " of no avail." That is why the people walked away, they were looking at it through the lens of the carnal mind. If you look at John 6 through the lens of the Supernatural it can be understood. The Eucharist is something Supernatural.
@@BensWorkshop Spiritual reality is still real though? The Presbyterians are in the camp of Real Presence, albeit different from Lutherans.
Jesus didn't use a parable during the bread of life discourse
Well said
No he used hyperbole
@@toddgallo1759hyperbole for what exactly?
He did, however, use typology.
@Michael-bk5nz for what exactly!!! Have you not read the entire chapter of John 6? The very fact that Jesus numerous times tried to get the multitude to see the difference between feeding their physical bodies and their souls. And the CC conclusion is you have to eat the flesh and drink his blood. The CC is as blind and deaf as the multitude. How many times did the Lord tell the multitude what the work of his father was and they chose not to listen? Time and time again they kept pressing the Lord to feed them to where he finally said the only thing I will give you is my flesh. You have to spiritually blind and deaf not to understand what the Lord was saying.
The early pagans believed Christians were cannibals. The early Christians believed in the Eucharist as Jesus's real presence.
that was projection because the pgns WERE cannibals.
St Laurence mocks this in his Martyrdom.
And Muslims believed Christians thought Mary was a member of the Trinity and the mother of the divine nature of Christ. So it must be true too? That’s a bad argument.
@@classicalteacher indeed they did.
@@jellyphase They would only have gotten these ideas if they misunderstood a concept that was shocking to them, and that would not be easy to clarify in a conversation. For example, when a muslim hears the title "God bearer", it was easy to get things wrong-
The words " Flesh is of no avail" as Rightly pointed out at time 4:18 to 4:32 is our Flesh. The underlying meaning is that Eucharist is the exchange of Flesh, we have to give ours to the cross in Exchange for Jesus Divine Flesh.. As Rom:12:1 says "offer your bodies to him as a living sacrifice...."
“It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh(Human Reason) is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit (Spiritual/Supernatural) and life.”
John 6:63
What Jesus was talking about in John 6 was something Supernatural, it can't be understood using Human Reason it's... " of no avail." That is why the people walked away, they were looking at it through the lens of the carnal mind. If you look at John 6 through the lens of the Supernatural it can be understood. The Eucharist is something Supernatural.
@@MegaTechno2000HIS disciples did not walk away! Please read what St Peter said!
Those that walked away were followers of Moses who had told them to avoid the consumption of blood. HIS disciples trusted in HIM and stayed with HIM🙏❤️🙏
@@patriciagrenier9082 If you reread I actually didn't say "disciples" ...I said
"the people".
But if you want to be precise it actually does say disciples. But it's not talking about the original 12 Apostles.
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
John 6:66
Great explanation. Without the Spirit, it is difficult to see. Thank God for you and your ministry.
Joe is awesome. Great video, truly an eye-opener for whoever is willing to listen.
Also, yes to the gnosticism video, please. It has been trying to make a come back lately, we need to be prepared.
Joe always bringing the fire-
the Holy Spirit fire! ✨🔥✨
If verse 63 is so clearly teaching that what Jesus was saying was “spiritual” or metaphorical then why did his disciples STILL walk away from him after that? That’s clear evidence that everyone, EVERYONE continued to understand Jesus’ teaching in a literal sense.
@@rexfordtugwelljr Jn 6:66, the first Protestants! With God there are no coincidences!
And the fact that Jesus knows the hearts of men.
John 18:37
“It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh(Human Reason) is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit (Spiritual/Supernatural) and life.”
John 6:63
What Jesus was talking about in John 6 was something Supernatural, it can't be understood using Human Reason it's... " of no avail." That is why the people walked away, they were looking at it through the lens of the carnal mind. If you look at John 6 through the lens of the Supernatural it can be understood. The Eucharist is something Supernatural.
@@geoffjsJohn 6:60-66 is the real picture when the spirit of protestantism are manifested...😢
@@MegaTechno2000 Absolutely.
Yes Joe, please do a deep dive on Gnosticism’s infiltration into some areas of Protestantism. As a recent convert from Evangelicalism I have much to learn. Always look forward to your posts.
Welcome home, Susan!
Welcome home!
I would really be interested in a deeper dive into the gnostic influences in the reformation and later denominations. I am currently working my way from my current church into the Catholic Church, and these videos really help me in my understanding, thank you for your help.
I look forward to being able to welcome you home! I will pray for your journey.
I grew up as a Protestant believer and, now at 56 years of age, have found myself falling in love with what I've discovered within Catholicism (although I'm not yet Catholic). In no small part, this has been due to the faithful efforts of people such as Joe Heschmeyer! In addressing this section of John (chapter 6), I have come to the following conclusions...
It is true that Protestants will often use this statement of Jesus as a hermeneutic to argue that he was speaking metaphorically when he said "whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life". However, this interpretation ignores the context of this section of John, in which Jesus is clearly recapitulating the drama of Moses’ dealings with the Israelites during their 40 years of testing in the desert before being allowed to enter the Promised Land (verses 31-33; also compare the people's statement in verse 14 w/Deuteronomy 18:15 & St. Paul's understanding of this in Acts 3:22-23).
Another observation that bolsters this point is that, during the feeding of the 5,000 there's a further reference found in both the gospel of Mark & Luke to Jesus instructing his disciples to separate the multitude into groups, which echoes back to the event of Moses appointing leaders for Israel during their 40-year sojourn in the wilderness (Exodus 18:24-26; Mark 6:39-40 & Luke 9:14).
Here, we see Jesus begin to sidestep the corrupt religious leaders by appointing his disciples as the new servant-leadership over the 12 tribes of Israel (the "sheep without a shepherd" / Mark 6:34... ref. Ezekiel 34:1-16). Fulfilling his promise in Ezekiel, God in Christ is coming to shepherd his people and, like the wilderness generation, he is making a distinction amongst the people by separating those who believe from those who do not believe... that He is the true bread given by the Father... that his flesh is true food and his blood is true drink (verses 52-58). However, after being confronted with such a radical claim, "many of his disciples said, 'This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?'" (verse 60). Which leads us to the controversial text in question...
“It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But among you there are some who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.” Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.” (verses 63-66).
In the bread of life discourse, we hear a clear reference to Israel’s 40 years of testing in the wilderness and of those who perished because of their unbelief (Heb. 3:7-19; Jude 1:5). In the light of this and the broader context of Scripture, might we rather view this statement of Jesus (“It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is of no avail”) as a counter-argument to the Jews' nationalistic claims to membership in the Kingdom of God by invoking their "covenant boundary markers" (circumcision / receiving the Law / receiving the manna in the wilderness)? And, going even further behind all this drama, might we even hear an echo of the underlying theme presented throughout Scripture of a “circumcision of the flesh versus a circumcision of the heart”?
Luke 3:8 / Romans 9:6-8
Romans 2:28-29 / Deuteronomy 30:6 / Jeremiah 31:31-34 (circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not in the letter)
Romans 8:1-17
1 Cor 7:19
2 Cor 3:3-6
Galatians 5:2-6 (in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love)
Galatians 6:12-15 (neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation)
Philippians 3:2-11
I would ask Protestants this: If you were in the devil's shoes before the Reformation and you wanted to attack the Catholic Church from within, wouldn't you tempt people to take away central tenets of the Faith? Just pretend for a second that, as the devil, you know the following to be true: the Eucharist is really Jesus, Confession works, We can lose our Salvation, Knowing Mary is important to knowing Jesus, Angels and Saints can present our prayers to God, etc. All of those would be amazing to know if they were real! If you were the evil one, wouldn't you try to make people believe that none of those teachings were real? Because that is exactly what happened. Now, I want to be clear that I am NOT saying Protestant Churches of today are evil. They are not the ones who were Catholic and turned away. They have many of the truths of Christianity. So I'm really just talking about the original Reformation.
I guess for some protestants that are particularly low church, they would think all those physical implications took away from the spiritual and replaced them with superstition. Following church history, that would mean Satan won over the church until pretty recently, for even Calvin and Luther didn't deny the efficacy of the sacraments.
I would partially agree as a Lutheran. The total and subtle destruction and gutting of efficaciousness of the sacraments leads many to lack of assurance. But the claims about ‘knowing Mary as important to knowing Jesus” and “saints and angels can intercede for us” the Protestant sees as utter heresy and idol worship as there is no scriptural basis. Along with how can one submit to pope as authority (moreso than scripture), if many popes have proven themselves to be wicked men and have instituted wicked beliefs and policies while concealing truth from the masses?
@erikrose7041 so there are some misunderstandings there. 1. We don't believe that know Mary is as important as knowing Jesus. Mary is another avenue through which we can know Christ better, in the same way that I got closer to my wife after meeting her parents. The idea that Saints and angels can intercede for us is in the Catholic Bible. Unfortunately, Luther removed books in his translation that support it. I
Yes, there have been wicked; Jesus did not tell Peter he would make him perfect as the leader of the Church. The only papal authority that matters is when he creates new dogma, which is only done after so much evidence has amassed for something that the Church already believes it anyway. For example, Catholics prayed a mystery of the Rosary about the Assumption for hundreds of years before the Pope declared it a dogma.
@@erikrose7041 “saints and angels can intercede for us” is seen explicitly in scripture in Revelation 5:8 (and to argue otherwise is "utter heresy"),not to mention all the other implicit mentions within scripture.
There's also a difference between saying "knowing Mary IS AS important as knowing Jesus" and "knowing Mary AS important as knowing Jesus." The first statement (which @ToddJambon did not make) would be problematic. The second is not inherently problematic and is indeed as old as Christianity itself. It's even scriptural if you understand the role of the Queen Mother (Gebirah) in the Davidic kingdom -- she was the important figure with the king, not his wife; she's always mentioned in conjunction with the king when the king is introduced in scripture; she sits at the king's right hand; and she acts as intercessor for the people with the king, something we see Mary doing in scripture at Cana. Jesus sits on David's throne as the eternal king of the eternal, divine kingdom; therefore, the Davidic kingdom was a *type* of the heavenly kingdom, and the old cannot be greater than the new, so therefore the Queen Mother of the new (divine) kingdom cannot be lesser than the Queen Mothers of the earthly form of the kingdom.
A very well done and much needed video.
Im Orthodox, the protestant position invalidates the cross.
The Protestant positions is built upon the atonement as revealed in Scripture. We are deeply sorry that you just don't like Christianity enough to care what God has revealed.
@@markmeyer4532 sorry you are in the dark and do not believe the Words of Jesus. Hope you come to believe in this life.
Why did Jesus do such a shitty job that only 1400 years later did people actually figure out what he meant, and those people that figured it out could consolidate a church around the correct interpretation? Protestantism is built on the denial of Jesus, half the time they don't even have an altar it's some random guy acting as God. Why was Jesus so terrible at establishing the correct interpretation of his own words
@@markmeyer4532 atonement? The world was reconciled to God by Christ. The Eucharist is the participation in His sacrifice.
God bless you all. Peace be with you all. Happy to be a Catholic. Thank you Mr. Joe for the informative video. God bless 😊🙏
Protestant: "Christ's flesh is of no avail!"
EO/RC....slowly start backing away
LOL, quite the contrary!😂😅😊
Hi, R.
I'm afraid I don't quite understand. Could you clarify?
I can imagine that you are not Christian and hold these minutia debates in contempt.
I can imagine that you are Protestant and hold Catholic and Orthodox positions in contempt, as demonstrated by their effective admission of defeat implied in their abandoning the field of debate as soon as "no avail" is raised.
I can imagine that you are Catholic or Orthodox and hold Protestant positions in contempt, as demonstrated by the invalidation of Christianity inherent in the claim that Christ's flesh is of no avail.
The only way to believe in God and follow him is by eating Him once a week?
@@johnbrowne2170 Correct. More often if possible. Read John 6:52-58
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.”
@@johnbrowne2170 Not at all. Natural religion recognises God and the duty of religion without benefit of any revelation whatever. Monotheistic religions express understandings which provide for their adherents both to believe in God and to follow Him with varying degrees of correctness and completeness. The same can be said for the various versions of Christianity.
What Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism bring to the table is a more correct and more complete understanding of revelation in which God gives, not only His laws, not only His truth, not only His grace, not only His Spirit, bu Himself wholly.
8:50 Joe please make this video. This is exactly what some of my friends need.
How to Be Christian FINALLY dropped Part II of his epic journey about the Eucharist, for those interested. It's brilliant!
Totally!
Thanks Joe, you are great!!!
I'm protestant, but I'm Lutheran, so I believe in real presence too, and I just gotta say, the more and more I talk to and learn about other protties, the closer and closer I get to mother mary... lol
May God bless you, and guide you to where He wants you to be.
Take care my dear brother in Christ!
🙌
I just had a debate over the eucharist and got stumped by this verse. Thankful to see God’s timing by you posting this
Gnostic video would be great!
I’d appreciate an episode on Gnosticism.
Great video. I wish you also touched “do this in remembrance of me” which bugged me for a long time until I found out that it doesn’t mean “for you to remember me”. It’s more like: “offer this remembrance sacrifice to remind God the Father of Me (His new Covenant) where He promised to spare us of His condemnation and free us from slavery of sin”.
Now you people are inserting things, he simply said do this in remembrance of me, not in for remembrance of the father. So during the lord supper when Jesus was yet to go to the cross what were they eating?
@@adjoa-anima , if you believe that Jesus is the Word of God incarnate then you should be able to deduce that time and space (part of creation) is part of his domain. The Passover sacrifice was a remembrance sacrifice for the old covenant. Jesus, The Lamb, is the sacrifice of the new Covenant. Eating the flesh of the lamb of the old sacrifice wasn’t symbolic or optional, the Jews knew that. So when Jesus said do this in remembrance of me, everybody at the table knew what it meant. In today’s world everybody will hear those words and think they mean “to remember me”, however, that’s not what He meant in that context. I think that “in remembrance” means “in honor”, and what you do in honor is the offering of a real sacrifice in that context not a symbolic gesture.
@@AlbinoCordeiroJunior well the Jews did not eat bread in place of the lamb, but Jesus choose to give us something else in his place when we eat we should remember the price he paid for us, so why would Jesus eat his own flesh and drink his own blood what was the need for him to partake in the lord's supper if it is meant for our salvation?
@@adjoa-anima in the Bible it doesn’t say He ate it but the theologians will tell you that he was qualified to be both high Priest and perfect sacrificial Lamb. That was a whole thing of the Law. They were always trying to find a perfect priest to go in the temple and make a sacrifice of a perfect lamb. Jesus fulfilled both roles. Really, I think “in remembrance of me” means offer a real sacrifice in honor of me, not “do a little theatrics to remember me”. Until 500 years ago Christians all believed in the real presence. Even Martin Luther did.
@@AlbinoCordeiroJunior not the apostles though, they didn't quite see it that way, Paul reported in one of his letters that some people wouldn't eat at home and only to fill themselves with the lord's supper, he advised against it and excluded a number of people who are not in right standing with the lord. It telling that they saw it as a feast not Jesus' literal flesh and blood, just the old testament had a feast that God asked the Israelites to continue observing, after the exodus the angel of death was no longer coming to kill those who don't have blood at their door, they did it to remember what the lord had done, likewise our new covenant has a feast which we are to observe to remember what he did on the cross for us, Jesus doesn't die and give us his flesh and blood every time we go for the lord's supper, the lord's supper is not what will give life to our bodies but it's the words of Jesus which are life and spirit and we are to feed on the word daily
A man with the Holy Spirit! God bless Joe Hersjmeyer.
No he doesn't have the holy spirit
@@adjoa-anima You're demon possessed
Gnostic Spurgeon would be a hit video. Do it!
A beautiful explanation.
I originally thought that this was gonna be saying that the accidents of bread and wine is of no avail and what is crucial is the deeper spiritual and metaphysical reality of Christ’s soul literally being imbued into the bread and wine. I thought it was saying that the outside appearance isn’t what should be the focus but the reality of what those things really are, this video is so interesting I like his explanation a lot it’s different than I expected
The beauty of the accidents is that they ALSO communicate to us the reality of Christ flesh and blood. Like even when believing transubstantiation, the appearances are still symbols point us to the truth of Christ…
Unleavened bread that looks like manna, where many ancient cultures consider bread equal to life…
Where alcohol cleansed and wine mixed with water was a clean way to drink life-giving water…
Like it’s totally fitting that God chose these elements to trans-substantiate.
“It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh(Human Reason) is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit (Spiritual/Supernatural) and life.”
John 6:63
What Jesus was talking about in John 6 was something Supernatural, it can't be understood using Human Reason it's... " of no avail." That is why the people walked away, they were looking at it through the lens of the carnal mind. If you look at John 6 through the lens of the Supernatural it can be understood. The Eucharist is something Supernatural.
Thanks, LOVE TO HEAR MY FAITH SPOKEN SO WELL ❤🙏 ♥️
There's one more hint in verse 30 where Jews expect something visible like the manna, and Jesus in verse 40 replies that to be saved we must SEE Him and believe in Him: "What sign are you going to give us then, so that we may SEE it and believe you? ... This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who SEE the Son and believe in him may have eternal life".
So seeing Jesus in the Eucharist is key. It is also necessary for worthy reception of the Communion. And we can see Jesus only if He's physically present, ie. if He has a Flesh!
The meaning of "the flesh is of no help at all" is clarified in 8:15 when Jesus says to the Jews, "you judge according to the flesh," meaning, "your assessment of who I am and what I am saying is according to earthly human understanding (the flesh)." When Jesus says, "the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life," he is contrasting spiritual understanding with mere human fleshly understanding.
As a Baptist, I never understood why people were so passionate about this.
I never thought Jesus miraculously turning bread and wine into his body and blood makes us horrible cannibals. I just thought that He is with us either way.
Your explanation helped me understand why both sides care.
Please do a video, it is most needed in these times.
If Protestants interpret this verse as "the flesh is of no avail" to discount the Eucharist, they also are discounting Jesus' flesh dying on the cross. PERHAPS that's why they hide the body being on their version of the cross???
Wow. I would definitely like a video on the gnostic idea of "body bad, spirit good". Thank you!
If they say it is a metaphor, then John 6:63 "If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" is ALSO a metaphor. But Jesus is talking about His ascension which is, as they all agree, literal. If "eat my flesh" is symbolic, then so is the ascension.
Really good point. That is the verse directly before the flesh is of no avail passage. It really trips them up when you focus on that one. How does the ascension fit into this framework if Jesus is not being literal. At least in a sacramental way.
Great explanation Joe! Would love to hear further explanation about Charles Spurgeon.
Protestants: EITHER/OR
Catholics: BOTH/AND
Excellent, an important point that Protestantism fails to appreciate!
Jesus & Mary
True Body & Blood
Faith & Reason
Sacred Tradition & Sacred Scripture
Jesus’ Body & Cross
Mortal & venial sin
Faith & Grace
Etc
PERSONAL NOTES:
00:00 Does this verse disprove the Eucharist?
00:10 Is eating His Flesh a metaphor?
2:45 Problem #1: It Renders John 6 incoherent (Consider John 6:63 in comparison to John 6:53 - 56)
04:55 Problem #2: It Strips the cross it’s meaning (Consider John 6:51)
06:10 Problem 3: It logically denies bodily resurrection (Consider 1 Corinthians 15:42-45)
8:58 The Devil, The Eucharist, and Cannibalism (Galatians 5:19-21)
10:07 Flesh refers to Unaided Humanity. Spirit refers to Divine Assistance
If Christ’s flesh in the Eucharist is of no avail then it wasn’t helpful on the cross either. Protestants always want it both ways.
Absolutely want to see a deep dive on Prognosticanism!
Yes please Gnosticism video
Wow. I always put off listening to your videos and I have no idea why.
8:24 Ahah! I was wondering why you had put a painting of you, and then I realised you were talking about Charles Spurgeon
Hilarious! I shared this on Facebook, and it led to many laughs...
Very interested to see a video on Gnosticism. I'm knew to the term as a protestant for 5 years converting to Catholicism. But it sounds a lot like what I was taught in my discipleship program (Spurgeon was regarded very highly there as well, had no idea he was a Gnostic)
Welcome home!
Great and helpful video. I also found the commentary St Cyril of Alexandria helpful as well as he used the couple of verses before it to explain verse 63. This is long but a good read:
John 6:61-62 (NASB95) 61 “But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62 “What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?”
(Cyril of Alexandria) John 6:62: “From utter ignorance, certain of those who were being taught by Christ the Saviour, were offended at His words. For when they heard Him saying, Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, ye have no life in you (John 6:53), they supposed that they were invited to some brutish savageness, as though they were enjoined to eat flesh and to sup up blood, and were constrained to do things which are dreadful even to hear. For they knew not the beauty of the Mystery, and that fairest economy devised for it. Besides this, they full surely reasoned thus with themselves, How can the human body implant in us everlasting life, what can a thing of like nature with ourselves avail to immortality? Christ therefore understanding their thoughts (for all things are naked and bared to His eyes (Heb 4:13), heals them again, leading them by the hand manifoldly to the understanding of those things of which they were yet ignorant. Very foolishly, sirs, (saith He) are ye offended at My Words. For if ye cannot yet believe, albeit oftentimes instructed, that My Body will infuse life into you, how will ye feel (He saith) when ye shall see It ascend even into heaven? For not only do I promise that I will ascend even into heaven itself, that ye may not again say, How? but the sight shall be in your eyes, shaming every gainsayer. If then ye shall see (saith He) the Son of Man ascending into heaven, what will ye say then? For ye will be convicted of no slight folly. For if ye suppose that My Flesh cannot put life into you, how can It ascend into heaven like a bird? For if It cannot quicken, because its nature is not to quicken, how will It soar in air, how mount up into the heavens? for this too is equally impossible for flesh. But if it ascends contrary to nature, what is to hinder it from quickening also, even though its nature be not to quicken, of its own nature? For He Who made That heavenly which is from earth, will render it Lifegiving also, even though its nature be to decay, as regards its own self?
We must observe how He doth not endure to be divided into two christs, according to the uncounsel of some. For He keepeth Himself every way undivided after the Incarnation. For He says that the Son of man ascendeth up where He was before, although the earthly Body was not above before this, but only the Word by Itself before His Concurrence with flesh. Well then hath Paul put in his epistles. One Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor 8:6). For He is One Son, both before the Incarnation and after the Incarnation, and we do not reckon His own Body as alien from the Word. Wherefore He says that the Word which came down from above from heaven is also Son of Man. For He was made Flesh, as the blessed Evangelist saith (John 1:14), and did not pass into flesh by change (for He is without turning and Unchangeable by Nature as God) but as it were dwelling in His own Temple, I mean that from the Virgin, and made Man in very deed. But by saying that He will ascend up where He was before also, He gives His hearers to understand that He hath comedown from heaven. For thus it was like that they understanding the force of the argument, should give heed to Him not as to a man only, but should at length know that He is God the Word in the Flesh, and believe that His Body too is Life-giving.”
John 6:63 “It is the Spirit That quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.”
“It is not unreasonably (He says) that ye have clothed the flesh in no power of giving life. For when the nature of the flesh is considered alone and by itself, plainly it is not life-giving. For never will ought of things that are, give life, but rather it hath itself need of Him who is mighty to quicken. But when the Mystery of the Incarnation is carefully considered, and ye then learn who it is who dwelleth in this Flesh, ye will then surely feel (He says) unless you would accuse the Divine Spirit Itself also, that It can impart life, although of itself the flesh profiteth not a whit. For since it was united to the Life-giving Word, it hath become wholly Life-giving, hastening up to the power of the higher Nature, not itself forcing unto its own nature Him who cannot in any wise be subjected. Although then the nature of the flesh be in itself powerless to give life, yet will it inwork this, when it has the Life-working Word, and is replete with His whole operation. For it is the Body of that which is by Nature Life, not of any earthly being, as to whom that might rightly hold, The flesh proflteth nothing. For not the flesh of Paul (for instance) nor yet of Peter, or any other, would work this in us; but only and specially that of our Saviour Christ in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:9). For verily it would be a thing most absurd that honey should infuse its own quality into things which naturally have no sweetness, and should have power to transfer into itself that wherewith it is mingled, and that the Life-giving Nature of God the Word should not be able to elevate to Its own good that Body which It indwelt. Wherefore as to all other things the saying will be true, that the flesh profiteth nothing; but as to Christ alone it holdeth not, by reason that Life, that is the Only-Begotten, dwelt therein. And He calls Himself Spirit, for God is a Spirit (John 4:24) and as the blessed Paul saith, For the Lord is the Spirit (2 Cor 3:17). And we do not say these things, as taking away from the Holy Ghost His Proper Existence; but as He calls Himself Son of man, since He was made Man, so again He calls Himself Spirit from His Own Spirit. For not Other than He is His Spirit.
“The words that I have spoken unto you, they are Spirit and are life.”
He filleth whole His Own Body with the Life-giving operation of the Spirit. For He now calls the Flesh Spirit, not turning It aside from being Flesh: but because by reason of Its being perfectly united to Him, and now endued with His whole Life-giving Power, It ought to be called Spirit too. And no wonder, for be not offended at this. For if he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit (1 Cor 6:17), how shall not His Own Body rather be called One with Him? Something of this kind then He means in the passage before us: I perceive from your reasonings within you (saith He) that ye foolishly imagine that I am telling you, that the body of earth is of its own nature life-giving: but this is not the drift of My words. For My whole exposition to you was of the Divine Spirit and of Eternal Life. For it is not the nature of the flesh which renders the Spirit life-giving, but the might of the Spirit maketh the Body life-giving. The words then which I have discoursed with you, are spirit, that is spiritual and of the Spirit, and are life, i. e., life-giving and of that which is by Nature Life. And not as repudiating His Own Flesh does He say these things, but as teaching us what is the truth. For what we have just said, this will we repeat for profit sake. The nature of the flesh cannot of itself quicken (for what more is there in Him That is God by Nature?) yet will it not be conceived of in Christ as Alone and by Itself: for it has united to it the Word, Which is by Nature Life. When therefore Christ calls it life-giving, He does not testify the Power of quickening to It so much, as to Himself, or to His Spirit. For because of Him is His Own Body too Life-giving, since He re-elemented It to His Own Power. But the ‘how,’ is neither to be apprehended by the mind, nor spoken by the tongue, but honoured in silence and faith above understanding.
But that the Son too is often called by the name of Spirit by the God-inspired Scriptures, we shall know by what is subjoined. The blessed John then writes of Him, This is He That came by water and Spirit, Jesus Christ, not by water only, but by water and the Spirit: and it is the Spirit That beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth (1 John 5:6). Lo, he calleth the Spirit Truth, albeit Christ openly crieth out, I am the Truth (John 14:6). Paul again writes to us saying, They that are in the flesh cannot please God: but ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you, but if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. But if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness (Rom 8:8-10). Lo again herein having proved that the Spirit of God dwelleth in us, he hath said that Christ Himself is in us. For inseparable from the Son is His Spirit, according to the count of Identity of Nature, even though He be conceived of as having a Personal Existence. Therefore He often names indifferently, sometimes the Spirit, sometimes Himself.”
Yes, please do a video on Gnosticism and it’s modern forms.
I would like to offer one more quote from St. Augustine which directly addresses the interpretation of John 6:53-64.
“But does the flesh give life? Our Lord Himself, when He was speaking in praise of this same earth, said, “It is the Spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing.”...But when our Lord praised it, He was speaking of His own flesh, and He had said, “Except a man eat My flesh, he shall have no life in him” (John 6:54). Some disciples of His, about seventy, were offended, and said, “This is an hard saying, who can hear it?” And they went back, and walked no more with Him. It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said to themselves, He says not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learned that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learned. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and says unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickens, but the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63). *Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.”*
Augustine (Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8).
Thanks for sharing
That I must save. It's brilliant.
@@coolcatbaron 😊 If you liked that one, here is another quote which makes crystal clear how Augustine interpreted the "hard saying" of John 6:53-54.
*_On Christian Doctrine_** (Book 3)*
*"Chap. 16.-Rule for interpreting commands and prohibitions*
"24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of
prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to
forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of
man," says Christ, "and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." This seems to enjoin a crime or
a vice; *it is therefore a figure,* enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord,
and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded
and crucified for us."
I talk a lot with my brother, who is some measure of Calvinist, about what I refer to as "the sneaky gnosticism in protestant traditions". Would love a long form video about that.
there is another chapter to understand that the Holy Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, read carefully Luke 24 starting from verse 13:
These 2 disciples are walking on a long road and the resurrected Jesus appears but they do not recognize him all along this road. And when they arrived home in the evening, they invited Jesus to stay with them because it was late. And Jesus begins to consecrate the bread and gives it to them, then their eyes open but Jesus had already disappeared from their eyes (here there are 2 meanings: eyes of flesh and eyes of faith!) And these 2 disciples after having taken this consecrated bread takes the long, reverse route at night (strength of the Eucharist) to tell others that they have recognized Jesus Christ RESURRECTED through the FRACTION OF THE BREAD!
His disciples were baffled. Much how like Nocodemus was baffled about being 'born again'.
YET THEY DID NOT WALK AWAY!🙏They had grown to trust HIM. Hence Peter’s reply was “no” for YOU have Life🙏
Joe: I should know this. (I am a priest of 37 years).
When I consecrate the Precious Blood the words are, “the Blood … will be poured out for you and for the many …. Why the many and not for all (as a poor ICEL translation once read)? I know Jesus’ words in Mt 26:28 are, “the many.” But why not for all? I know NOT ALL accepted or accept Jesus’ saving Sacrifice. (I may have been taught why in the seminary but I have slept since then 😝!
Thank you! Father Fintan
Hello Father Fintan, here are three explanations that I hope you find helpful! God Bless!
Why does Jesus say, “for many” (Mark 14:24) (Matthew 20:28). At first, it may seem like Jesus did not die on the cross for everyone, but only a select group of people. So, was Jesus limiting his redemptive grace? There are three main reasons why Jesus says, “for many” and not, for all.
First let us make clear that yes Jesus died for all humanity, Jesus redeemed the whole human race. (1 Timothy 2:6). All of humanity has been redeemed, but will all be saved? 1 Timothy 2:4 reads “…God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved…” and Peter says that the Lord is “not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9) God desires all to be saved, but not everyone will accept God’s gift and live according to the grace received. In one sense, the many is for those who accept God’s gift of salvation and live by it. St. Jerome explains it as such, “And he did not say “to give his life as a redemption” for all, but “for many,” that is, for those who wanted to believe.” (“The Fathers of the Church St Jerome Commentary on Matthew, Thomas P. Scheck, pg 229). St. John Chrysostom explains it in the same way, “Why of many, and not of all? Because not all believed. For He died indeed for all” (St. John Chrysostom, Homily on the Epistle to the Hebrews, n. 17)
Second, Jesus is referring himself to the Old Testament prophecy of Isaiah 53 which is the chapter of the suffering servant. In the Greek Septuagint the word polli which translates to many, is used three times in the verses 10-12. When Jesus spoke at the last supper about his blood being poured out “for many”, Jesus is making a connection of himself to the suffering servant foreshadowed in Isaiah. Tom Nash explains it well: “Long before his Crucifixion, Jesus indicated that he was the suffering servant who “took our infirmities and bore our diseases” (Matt. 8:17; see Isa. 53:4), becoming more explicit as his ministry progressed (Matt. 17:9-13). Before his final trip to Jerusalem, Jesus made clear that he was the suffering-servant lamb, for he “came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28; Isa. 53:12).” (“The Biblical Roots of the Mass, by Thomas J. Nash, pg 152) “The reference becomes less debatable when, quoting Isaiah 53:12, Jesus goes on to identify himself explicitly at the Last Supper as the suffering servant Isaiah prophesied: “For I tell you that his scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was reckoned with transgressors’; for what is written about me had its fulfilment” (Luke 22:37).” (“The Biblical Roots of the Mass, by Thomas J. Nash, Pg 172)
The third reason can be answered by asking the question, who is excluded from Jesus’ death on the cross? As mentioned above, the people that reject salvation are not saved but yet they are all still redeemed. Jesus died for all AND redeemed all. Paul says Jesus died for all (2 Corinthians 5:14-15), so if Jesus died for all humanity, then who is excluded from the many? Is it Hitler? Jeffrey Dahmer? Judas? What about Mary the mother of God since she was sinless? The answer is that Jesus died for all (1 Timothy 2:6) which includes all sinners, and even his blessed Mother. The only person Jesus did not die for was himself.
@@smart_joey_4179 Wow! Thanks. I feel like I’m back in the seminary again?
Here’s a question for my fellow Protestants: if Mary’s tomb isn’t empty, then where are the churches claiming her relics? Because they would be the most important relics we would have, considering that Christ shares his body with her.
Joe, are there any sects claiming the relics of Mary?
Eucharistic Rosary:
There are five mysteries to meditate on Eucharistic devotion. 1. the wedding feast at Cana (Jesus changes water 💦 into wine 🍷(John2:1-12) 2. multiplication of loaves and fishes (John 6:1-15). 3. the teaching on the bread of life (John 6:22-71). 4. the last supper (John 14:1-1726). 5. the road to Emmaus (John 24:13-35). Rev. Robert Stein wrote A Scriptural Rosary for Eucharistic Devotion.
You just described the way that protestants think about the eucharist. I think that division amongst both sides it a problem of words not a problem of actions.
"If you eat the body of Christ, then you're a cannibal!"
Does this mean if you eat the symbolic body of Christ, then you're a symbolic cannibal?
The “Eucharist” is not what Jesus meant. Unfortunately people misunderstood Jesus and took his words literally and even what he said during the Passover meal before his death wrongly. John 7:37-39, is in a nutshell how we receive the riches of what the Almighty has promised to give us. How do we receive that spiritual life? By being born again, by receiving the Spirit of the Father by faith and repentance and understanding that it is by the Spirit of God that we are connected to Jesus and the Almighty God who is Jesus’s God and Father also (John 20:17), not by taking a piece of bread purporting to be Jesus’s body. What Jesus said in John 6 is all about spiritual things, nothing about food or drink or physical things, nothing happens in the “Eucharist”, it is all in the Spirit of God we are to receive as believers in what Jesus did for us on the cross.
Please do a video on gnosticism and the modern church.
John 6:63
“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”
As to the quote from GotQuestions, when reading carefully what Jesus said about the flesh counting for nothing without the Spirit, He says then, that His WORDS are 'spirit'. I believe it resonates so good with worshiping God 'in spirit and truth', an essential verse for protestants. No premeditated liturgy and no material objects used in worship. Just listening to the Word of God, meditating on it and talking about it. And yet, at the Last Supper the Twelve didn't feed themselves with the Word of God, if that was what Jesus meant in J 6:53-57. They did a real act of eating what looked like physical bread and were instructed to repeat that act in the future, and they knew it was something of great importance. If the bread in John is the Word of Jesus, then why having physical bread, at all? The flesh counts for nothing... Jesus could have given them the last, most important teaching, instead.
We (I am Protestant) don't believe that the "eating the living bread" in John 6 is "meditating on Jesus words/teachings," as Joe erroneously says above. We believe that "feeding on Christ's flesh and drinking his blood" in John 6 is to feast on Christ by faith, believing in him for our salvation. It is another picture of our receiving his life at new birth. And just like when you get married, you make your vows and then live them out, so we then live out our faith in Christ. The Lord's Supper is part of living out our faith; it is a celebration of our salvation, a proclamation of his death, and a participation in his body and blood spiritually. And we are to do this until he comes.
Transubstantiation isn't actually the issue here. The real problem with the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is that it effectively ignores all the verses in the chapter which say that it is by *believing* *in* *Jesus* that we have eternal life. (Jn 6:29, 35, 40, 47) Believing is replaced with physical ingestion of the Eucharist, and the true Gospel is concealed instead of illustrated. Because eating the Eucharist is thought to be the *means* to eternal life (6:54) instead of belief, many Catholics never truly receive Jesus spiritually because they believe it has been accomplished in their Eucharist participation. This is a serious loss.
Jesus commanded an unbloody REPRESENTATION of Calvary Jn 6 51-58 with the priest in persona Christi acting as Jesus the high priest offering Him as victim to His Father. When the priest says, MY body MY blood, it is not that of the priest but that of Jesus. Yes, Christ died once for all our sins, but He commanded perpetual propitiatory sacrifice for our sins which the early church commenced doing. Jesus has forgiven our sins, however, reparation still needs to be made via the Holy Mass
Read Mal 1:11 with gentiles offering pure sacrifice at all times in all places with the CC doing exactly that daily in most parishes around the world. The words daily bread, in their original language, refer to supernatural bread or Eucharist! If you don’t believe in His Real Presence, investigate Eucharistic miracles, msgs from God which science can’t explain with the same AB blood type & living heart tissue. Visit Carlos Acutis
Why do Satanists steal consecrated hosts from Catholic parishes which they desecrate at sacrilegious black masses?
@@jmferris542 good grief what a strawman. At no point has the Catholic Church ever encouraged replacing belief with ingestion of the Eucharist - eating the Eucharist is part of our faith. It’s how we can encounter God physically and another way in which He Unites Himself to us.
In fact if we didn’t believe that Christ is our Saviour then we mustn’t eat the Eucharist because to do so would be to fail to discern the body and so eat and drink our own judgment.
Also you mentioned marriage. When husband and wife are married they join in Spirit, but also in Flesh in the marital embrace. If marriage is an earthly representation of Christ’s marriage to His Church, then the marital embrace (in the flesh) is a representation of receiving Holy Communion where we are physically United as one with Jesus, as well as in Spirit.
And Jesus never said to merely ‘feed on me in faith’. He said to eat his flesh and drink his blood in visceral terms
@@harrymoore9358 I understand your concern. Just to clarify, I agree that the Catholic Church has not by its official dogma replaced "eating the Eucharist" for "believing in Jesus." But it is in the CC's interpretation of John 6 where this replacement occurs. Certainly many Catholics do personally trust in and believe in Jesus alone for their salvation. But I also know many Christians who say that when they were Catholic, they understood verse 54 ("whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life") to mean that regular receiving of the Eucharist results in eternal life. And that is perfectly consistent with the Catholic interpretation of the verse. So the unfortunate consequence of this misinterpretation of John 6 is that, unlike you, many DO trust in the Eucharist itself, rather than the saving faith that John 6 actually pictures. In their case, the sign usurps the thing signified.
And this is the tragic loss I was describing.
We actually agree with much of what you said about the Eucharist. We believe it is *truly* participation in the body and blood of Christ. And the importance of the Eucharist in our relationship with Christ we also agree with. But we do not worship it.
If you compare verse 40 and verse 54 in John chapter 6, the two sentences are identical. So you can see that "believing in the Son" is equivalent to "feeding on his flesh and drinking his blood." The whole chapter is about believing on the Son. The whole book of John is about believing in the Son. This is what results in eternal life. If you interpret the John 6 "feeding" as transubstantiated Eucharist, then you must say that verse 53 means, "unless you receive the transubstantiated Eucharist, you have no spiritual life at all." So then it is only logical for many to trust in receiving the sacrament instead of trusting in Christ himself. It is important to take an interpretation and test it with its logical conclusions.
@@jmferris542 thank you for the response. I think this is one of those topics where we could end up speaking past each other in some sense. But we ought to try.
I can’t say I’ve met any Catholics on my end who think that they are saved just by eating the Eucharist, independent of Faith and a life lived in Christ’s Grace and good works. I’ve also seen nothing in the catechism to encourage such a stance but I’m willing to have a look if you have a particular paragraph in mind.
I do however think that for those who have faith and sufficient knowledge that receiving the Eucharist is a necessary pre-requisite for salvation because Christ Himself commanded us to adhere to this channel of His saving Grace. But that’s not to say that anyone who eats it will automatically be saved even if living a life of faithlessness/grave sin. On the contrary that would damage their soul.
Much like how God commanded the Israelites to consume the Passover - it really was the sacrifice’s flesh they ate, and had they been living a life of unrepentant sin then it would not benefit them, in fact the pretence may have only angered God more (like when God talks about worthless sacrifices), but if instead they had refused to eat then their friendship with God would also be severed as they would not be obeying His command.
Faith, a life lived under the law of Christ, and the subsequent reception of the Sacraments which are part of that life and reception of Grace are all necessary for salvation.
The Eucharist neither adds to God’s saving Grace, substitutes it, nor detracts from it. It IS the saving Grace of God because it is the reception of our expiation - the crucified and risen body, blood, soul, and divinity of the Lord Himself.
I also see your point on verses 40 and 54. They are very similar - but one doesn’t have to read that as the Eucharist is merely feeding on faith in a metaphorical and symbolic way, but rather that the Eucharist is part of believing in the Son and that both are necessary - belief and the consumption of the celestial body which is part of that belief. When I read the Church fathers too I struggle to see this any other way.
Thank you for a very informative vidéo. I have wondered a lot if the Eucharist is the resurrected body or the earthly body.
Mass is continuation of Christ s sacrifice not a reinactment
We need a video on Gnosticism in Protestantism
Christs body cannot Corrupt! Christ is the second person of The Holy Trinity! Gods Holy Body!
True Lamb of God offered daily for our ongoing conversion. And what an EXTRAORDINARY GRACEFILLED EXPERIENCE TO UNDERTAKE! If the protestant soul new this, they Could actually die of joy when they partook of this Mystery!
To reject sacramental theology, as many Protestants do, is to ignore centuries of church history in which all Christians believed in the sacramental function of certain rituals, particularly the Eucharist, that they are true means of receiving saving Grace from God.
Thanks for the qualification "many." Lutherans, for instance, are an exception.
Jesus was also following up on what he had said to the crowd before knowing that they were looking for him not for his teaching for but for bodily nourishment he had provided for them when he multiplied the bread and the fish. They were not looking for spiritual nourishment but for natural food to satisfy their hunger. Jesus wanted them rather to hunger for righteousness and he would give them bread from heaven being himself that bread/true bread that came down from heaven and gives life to the world. He asked them not to work for food that perishes but instead for the food that endures to eternal life which is his own flesh which he would give for the life of the world. In other words, Jesus was teaching them that food for the life of the spirit was more important than that for the body/flesh.
Please make a video of Charles Spurgeon
Funny, just read this verse in my own reading and it made so much sense reading it in context again.
So much so I laughed at the thought of taking it as most modern Protestants do.
As a protestant I affirm and hold to true presence.
I also hold that [Matthew 18:20] "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." is true.
But without a validly ordained priesthood to confect the Eucharist, Protestantism is forced to believe in the symbolic Eucharist!
@@geoffjs why?
@@georgwagner937 Only the Catholic & Orthodox Churches have an unbroken line of apostolic succession going back to the apostles. Clergy outside those Churches don’t have the power to confect the Real True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist & are therefore not “churches”, more like synagogue with prayer & teaching!
@@geoffjs clergy with apostolic succession is necessary because only clergy with apostolic succession confects the real true presence of christ in the eucharist.
you think clergy "confects" the real true presence of christ in the eucharist?
Is that catholic doctrine or your understanding?
Yes, please do make a video on gnosticism!
When people think John 6 is metaphorical, I came to realize that it would make no sense because it would be a 2-step metaphor. I had to create a term to refer to it, since no one makes 2-step metaphors. If Jesus said the bread is his body, and that was the entire metaphor, then we would be trying to figure out how bread exhibits similarities with his body (and not necessarily the other way around). But people say it's the Word of God that we should consume. But the Word of God is NOT in this metaphor. One has to go the next step by saying Jesus is the Word made flesh. Thus, bread => body => Word of God. No one in their right mind would expect people to follow a 2-step metaphor! He would obviously want to clarify as he went along, rather than stepping things up over and over and tossing in some line at the end to undo everything he just taught them. It makes NO SENSE as a metaphor.
When we speak of Jesus’s sacrifice, are we being figurative? I ask, because consuming the offering is part of what sacrifice entails. To suggest « my flesh » is figurative is to undermine the truth of the Cross.
From the Rev. George Leo Haydock Bible Commentary: "Ver. 64. The flesh profiteth nothing. Dead flesh, separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to say, man’s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us. - Are spirit and life. By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace and life. These words sufficiently correct the gross and carnal imagination of these Capharnaites, that he meant to give them his body and blood to eat in a visible and bloody manner, as flesh, says St. Augustine, is sold in the market, and in the shambles;[3] but they do not imply a figurative or metaphorical presence only. The manner of Christ’s presence is spiritual and under the outward appearances of bread and wine; but yet he is there truly and really present, by a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his body and blood, which truly and really become our spiritual food, and are truly and really received in the holy sacrament. - The flesh[4] of itself profiteth nothing, not even the flesh of our Saviour Christ, were it not united to the divine person of Christ. But we must take care how we understand these words spoken by our Saviour: for it is certain, says St. Augustine, that the word made flesh, is the cause of all our happiness. (Witham) - When I promise you life if you eat my flesh, I do not wish you to understand this of that gross and carnal manner, of cutting my members in pieces: such ideas are far from my mind: the flesh profiteth nothing. In the Scriptures, the word flesh is often put for the carnal manner of understanding any thing. If you wish to enter into the spirit of my words, raise your hearts to a more elevated and spiritual way of understanding them. (Calmet) - The reader may consult Des Mahis, p. 165, a convert from Protestantism, and who has proved the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist in the most satisfactory manner, from the written word. Where he shows that Jesus Christ, speaking of his own body, never says the flesh, but my flesh: the former mode of expression is used to signify, as we have observed above, a carnal manner of understanding any thing."
When Jesus said, "it is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail" (I'm paraphrasing).. He is speaking of the Spirit of the words he is speaking when He says His flesh is true food and blood true drink. Because the flesh (our flesh) cannot give us understanding, the Spirit (Holy Spirit) can. It is the Spirit that gives understanding ❤
There's also when Jesus says, "Do this in memory of me" The Lords supper is a memorial to His life and death. That is enough to understand that the Eucharist, eating His body and flesh is unbiblical.
His food is spiritual not literally.
We are resurrected body and soul that is a important Jesus body was changed into eternal body
Nice to push this right after How to Be Christian published the masterpiece.
Joe has talked about this very thing before, as I recall listening to that video. Though which specific one I am not sure.
Perhaps you could answer a couple of questions. 1) Vss. 53-56 if taken alone means that if an atheist partakes of the Eucharist, he/she becomes a Christian that will be raised at the last day, then read vss. 64 implies that faith not ritual alone saves a person, is that Catholic doctrine? 2) We all know what happens to food when we eat it, it is digested and turns into excrement, does the same thing happen to the bread and wine of the Eucharist once consumed?
"1) Vss. 53-56 if taken alone means that if an atheist partakes of the Eucharist, he/she becomes a Christian that will be raised at the last day, then read vss. 64 implies that faith not ritual alone saves a person, is that Catholic doctrine? "
The Eucharist must be approached in faith and free from mortal sin, which are grave sins that separate one from Christ's Church. To do so would be a form of sacrilege. As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11: 27
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. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
That is why Catholics do not permit none believers and those Christians not in communion with the Catholic Church to eat or drink of the Eucharist. It is dangerous!
"2) We all know what happens to food when we eat it, it is digested and turns into excrement, does the same thing happen to the bread and wine of the Eucharist once consumed?"
The Eucharist remains the body and blood of Christ so long as it retains the form of bread and wine. As it is digested, it loses the form of bread and wine, and the the real presence of Christ is no longer there. It normally takes 10 or 15 minutes for the body to digest it. So no, what is excremented is no longer the body and blood of Christ.
@@danielcarriere1958 Thanks for your reply.
The verse in discussion sugests that the bread of the Eucharist becomes the Body of Christ through the invocation of the Holy Spirit. Matter or flesh don't account for this miracle by themselves.
I pray Protestants to really pray to no the truth. They are rejecting the Great gift from God. Sad they are so missing out.✝️🙏😇
everyone should go watch How To Be Christian's 2 part series on John 6/the eucharist
I would love to have an episode breaking down why gnosticism is wrong - a protestant teetering on the edge of Catholicism/Orthodoxy
POLYCARP (Apostolic Brethren) was the Bishop/Overseer of the Church of Smyrna who was martyrdom in 155 A.D. ... The word BISHOP (overseers/head) was not a Literal HIERARCHY ORDER, but a Spiritual/Religious TASK (Duty) in the Early Churches in Asia Minor of the 1st Cent. A.D.
Christ Jesus said, "The Son of God/Man did not come to be SERVED but to SERVE."... "Anyone who wants to be a Leader (Head/Bishop) should be the Servant of all." (ref. Matt. 20:26-28)...
The R.C.C. created a LITERAL HIERARCHICAL ORDER combined with Political/State Order (Kings, Magistrates, Templars, Inquisitions, etc.) starting in the 4th Cent. A.D., patterned from the Pagan Roman Empire...
Facts and Truth, Historically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen...
It is not called the Roman Catholic Church.
THE LAMB 🐑 OF GOD:
John the Baptist called Jesus the “lamb of God” (John 1:29 & 1:36). Jesus is the pascal lamb 🐑 to be sacrificed. The Passover tradition started when Moses and the Israelites sacrificed an unblemished lamb 🐑 . In order to have the angel of death 💀 to Passover them, THEY HAD TO EAT THE SACRIFICIAL LAMB 🐑 (Exodus 12:8).
No symbol, literal. And he supplies his body (real) as bread. This IS MY BODY and his blood (wine) this IS my blood. This destroys their other objection that He can't give us His body to eat. HE DOES.
Would not misinterpretation also nullify the great verse also in John's gospel? " the Word made flesh and dwelt among us" Jn 3:16
the 1st mention of Judas' Betrayal was here, when the people were doubting and leaving Jesus. Commentators propose that this is what broke the camel's back for Judas, who must have thought that Jesus was a looney who obviously wasn't the prophecied Deliverer of the Jews.