Roman Catholic Tim Staples Debate vs Christian Steve Gregg ep 4: The Eucharist
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- The Eucharist was the focus of 4th day of a 5 day radio debate between Roman Catholic apologist Tim Staples of Catholic Answers (www.catholic.com/) and Evangelical Christian Bible teacher and radio host Steve Gregg (thenarrowpath.com).
#eucharist #catholic #christian #timstaples #bodyofchrist #blood #presenceofjesus #evangelical #protestant #romancatholic #catholicism #romancatholicchurch #bible #thenarrowpath #stevegregg #christianity #church #scripture #apologetics #jesus #jesuschrist #god #catholicanswers #communion #soteriology #salvation #sacraments #transubstantiation
1. The Authority of Scripture ruclips.net/video/AUFO9YSBz4k/видео.html
2. The Primacy of the Pope ruclips.net/video/kp_HUaPSzIQ/видео.html
3. The Doctrine of Mary ruclips.net/video/We0FQ4gAVZY/видео.html
4. The Eucharist ruclips.net/video/QzWEab-iJ4g/видео.html
5. Points Revisited - ruclips.net/video/FiA4GXEY5pk/видео.html
Steve's humility is humbling
Yes Steve's was. I was embarrassed by Tim some. 😔
Steve’s debate style is impressive. Whereas Tim is unable to help himself, and attacks the man with statements like ‘you’re wrong’ ‘I need to ‘correct you’ or insist Steve believes an idea, when Steve clearly states otherwise. Whereas, Steve remains focused on the ideas under discussion. He doesn’t attack Tim, but holds his ground with statements such as, ‘I disagree with you’, ‘that’s not how I see it’, or ‘I’d say the exact opposite.’
"you know a tree by its fruit"
Steve's understanding of scripture is quite impressive. Maybe Tim has never read where God says "call no man father".
Steve is one of my faves. His balanced disposition, patience and heart for Truth win me over every time. He has a scholars approach: "these options are on the table according to the text". That in itself opens my ear to hear someone out. Most pastors and pseudo-scholars etc do not have that approach which pushed me into the land of the scholars for answers (Michael Heiser, Tim Mackie, NT Wright) but i include Steve in that group too. He is extremely well studied.
@@noraplowshay8784LOL that was the verse that lead him to catholicism.
@@noraplowshay8784what about the verse where Jesus says unless you hate your mother or father you are not worthy of me. I think you should research the word hyperbole before making a silly statement like you did
Brother Steve, thank you for standing up for the truth.
I thank the Lord for men like you that have dedicated their lives to study the Word of God so you can edify the church.
God bless you brother Steve!!
Loved it! Bless you brother Steve for being at the edge of the sWORD and bless you Padre Tim for being open and prepared for the challenge. These are tuff subjects and there will be hardly anyone willing to raise the white flag. But the dialogue is peace.
@THEsotetoldal No it's not, it's truth. Peace at the cost of compromising the truth, is not peace at all.
I'm flabbergasted by Tim's lack of understanding of parables. He seems to be completely indoctrinated.and lacks quite a bit of discernment. He is also alittle bit patronizing saying "your wrong." I read it and completely understand it as Steve does. Just because he repeats "Catholics have been doing this for 2000 years", doesnt make it right! 😬 You clearly seen here who has God spirit.
Thank you lots for sharing this debate! I've been listening to every episode and look forward to the rest. Could you please let us know when these were first aired on the radio?
Thank you for all your work with this channel! God bless!
God Bless Steve 🙏🏼 🙏🏼🙏🏼
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
God help these people who are continually blapsheming and have no faith in Jesus' finished work. There are so many heinous problems with the Eucharist that even a non believer can see it.
There are alot of Catholic traditions that are off.
Steve has more tolerance for Catholics than for Dispensationalists
"But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom" Matt 26:29. he says "this fruit of the vine"....ergo it could not have been blood.
love your stupidity
He said it was blood
@@PInk77W1 no. read it again. "This fruit of the vine". he did not say "I will not drink this blood again".
@@lepton31415 in other places he said blood
Or my blood. Or if u don’t drink my blood
You have no life in you
@@PInk77W1 yeah and Jesus never ever uses metaphors does He?
The disciples left him not because of him talking about eating his flesh but Jesus words make it plain that he was the bread that came down from heaven. He answered his disciples from him ascending to him this is what offended them in context. He claimed to be the bread that came down from heaven and that he would ascend back to heaven. This offended them,
A person’s accidents don’t change when accept Christ in their soul just like the Eucharist bread’s accidents don’t change when consecrated into body of Christ via transubstantiation
When Paul taught the Corinthians on the subject of communion, he did not give even a hint that the elements are transubstantiated into "the whole Christ" (that is, His physical flesh, physical blood, soul, and divinity being present in every morsel.)
1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
1Co 10:17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
It says that communion is "a participation in" Christ's body and blood. In other words, we participate in Christ's death on the cross for our propitiation and in Christ's resurrection from the tomb. Notice that _it does not say it is a consumption of Jesus Christ,_ but only that it is a participation in what He did for us. Of course, we know that this participation is *by faith* and with thanksgiving. The passage also reveals that what we are really eating is *BREAD,* as it says in verse 17: "we all partake of the one bread." _It does not say_ that we all partake of Jesus, God the Son, or that we are literally consuming Almighty God.
1Co 11:20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.
1Co 11:21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.
1Co 11:22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
1Co 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
1Co 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
1Co 11:25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
1Co 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
1Co 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
1Co 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
The error being taught against was that of _not recognizing the significance of the communion elements;_ the bread and wine were being consumed as mere food for the belly. Thus, it says that a communicant should "examine himself" to make sure he recognizes the body and blood of Jesus which the bread and wine represent. This is how one "discerns" the body and blood: they believe that the communion elements are a sacramental remembrance of Jesus' death & resurrection. As Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of me.”
"do this in remembrance of me"....not "do this to enter the Kingdom"
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
@@bibleman8010 And what does Jesus say right after that "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit and life."
@@calfox Vs 54, "Whoever eats My flesh, and drinks My blood, has eternal life; and I will ..
raise him up on the last day." Did He say to eat the symbol of His flesh?
Vs 55, Jesus said, "For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed."
Vs 56, Jesus said, "He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood dwells in Me, and I in him."
Did He say, 'He that eats a symbol of My flesh...'. How can a mere symbol fulfill this promise?
Does only a symbol of Christ dwell in us? I thought GOD Himself dwelt within us, 1John 4:12-13.
Vs 59, This verse shows that Jesus taught this discourse to all the people.
Vs 60,They doubt a third time when many disciples said, "This is a hard saying, who can hear it"?
The Jews were instilled by many Old Testament verses, admonishing them not to consume blood.
See Deut 12:23, Lev 17:11and 14. They must have thought this was something akin to cannibalism.
Is this what you think too?
At any point did Jesus back down? Explain to me, if this chapter is symbolic, why did He not explain the symbolism to them?
Vs 61, Jesus did not back down, for He said, "Does this offend you?"
He knew their thoughts and He certainly knew the Old Testament verses about the consumption of blood.
In the next verse, He separated spiritual things from earthly things.
😂😂
Vs 63*, Jesus said, "It is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life."
Did He say He was speaking figuratively or in parables? This is the second verse detractors use to try to "prove" that Jesus spoke figuratively for the whole chapter. Did Jesus say "My" flesh? No, He said "the" flesh. What Jesus had said was, that we cannot accept this mystery if we accept it in too human a way, by having an earthly view of things. Those who can only think of cannibalism, are they not having an earthly view?
See John 3:6, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Verse 63 means that we should not have a carnal human understanding of His words, but a spiritual understanding.
In John, chapter 6, Jesus had not only called the 12 Apostles, there was also much larger group of other disciples. Things seemed to be going pretty well. That is until Jesus said “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,dwelleth in me, and I in him.” This was too much for many of his disciples and “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus turns to the 12 and asks, “Will ye also go away? Simon Peter gives the same answer that I find myself saying to those who tell me I should leave the Catholic Church for this reason or that one, “Lord, to whom shall we go?” No matter what a certain priest does, no matter what scandals hit the church, despite whatever corruption or abuse of power might exist, and despite whatever mistakes the Church has made throughout history, “to whom shall we go?” for here is the body and blood of Christ given for a sinner as miserable as I.
Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.
Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Toutoestin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood.
@@bibleman8010you catholics dont read the whole chapter? 😂 why you all stick to magisterium chants?
@@calfox John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.
John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of "spirit versus flesh" to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still "in the flesh."
John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic." As we have seen, the use of "spirit" relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.
John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn't Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn't Jesus say, "Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!"? Because they understood correctly.
Vs 54, "Whoever eats My flesh, and drinks My blood, has eternal life; and I will
raise him up on the last day." Did He say to eat the symbol of His flesh?
Vs 55, Jesus said, "For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed."
Vs 56, Jesus said, "He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood dwells in Me, and I in him."
Did He say, 'He that eats a symbol of My flesh...'. How can a mere symbol fulfill this promise?
Does only a symbol of Christ dwell in us? I thought GOD Himself dwelt within us, 1John 4:12-13.
Vs 59, This verse shows that Jesus taught this discourse to all the people.
Vs 60,They doubt a third time when many disciples said, "This is a hard saying, who can hear it"?
The Jews were instilled by many Old Testament verses, admonishing them not to consume blood.
See Deut 12:23, Lev 17:11and 14. They must have thought this was something akin to cannibalism.
Is this what you think too?
At any point did Jesus back down? Explain to me, if this chapter is symbolic, why did He not explain the symbolism to them?
Vs 61, Jesus did not back down, for He said, "Does this offend you?"
He knew their thoughts and He certainly knew the Old Testament verses about the consumption of blood.
In the next verse, He separated spiritual things from earthly things.
Vs 63*, Jesus said, "It is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life."
Did He say He was speaking figuratively or in parables? This is the second verse detractors use to try to "prove" that Jesus spoke figuratively for the whole chapter. Did Jesus say "My" flesh? No, He said "the" flesh. What Jesus had said was, that we cannot accept this mystery if we accept it in too human a way, by having an earthly view of things. Those who can only think of cannibalism, are they not having an earthly view?
See John 3:6, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Verse 63 means that we should not have a carnal human understanding of His words, but a spiritual understanding.
In John, chapter 6, Jesus had not only called the 12 Apostles, there was also much larger group of other disciples. Things seemed to be going pretty well. That is until Jesus said “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,dwelleth in me, and I in him.” This was too much for many of his disciples and “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus turns to the 12 and asks, “Will ye also go away? Simon Peter gives the same answer that I find myself saying to those who tell me I should leave the Catholic Church for this reason or that one, “Lord, to whom shall we go?” No matter what a certain priest does, no matter what scandals hit the church, despite whatever corruption or abuse of power might exist, and despite whatever mistakes the Church has made throughout history, “to whom shall we go?” for here is the body and blood of Christ given for a sinner as miserable as I.
Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.
Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Toutoestin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood.
You do the math. If that's not enough...see:
♦♦♦The desecration of the body and blood only occurs with catholic communion by pagans and satanist. It does not happen in protestant symbolic communion. That is a Que to the real presents of Christ in Catholic Eucharist.
Tim brings up an early church father
Steve brings up Christians who went astray.
Not comparable.
Catholic people can't change their views because the source they use for interpreting the Bible has authority even over the Bible.
The Popes word is Over scripture
The Magisterium of the Church
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48
87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.😜😜
The Roman Catholic Church says the millennium is the Roman Catholic Church rein under King Jesus Eucharistic rein using vicars is from Constantine to Martin Luther Protestant revolution , 313 to 1520
Don't be fooled by what Tim is saying about St Ignatious. He was adreesingc agnostics in a apologetic. In context it is their denial of flesh which is why they abstained they could not take the bread because it represented Jesus physical body which they denied he had.
I think you meant to write, "Gnostics," rather than "agnostics." 🙂
@@rexlion4510 Yes my apologies
Well said
Steve did a fantastic job here, and I think he’s 100% spot on (and was very charitable in the process). It’s kinda frustrating just how Tim can’t (somehow) seem to see that the passages themselves do not require a literalistic interpretation.
Catholicism is work salvation, please turn to Christ in faith as the Bible clearly says we are saved by grace which translates to CHARIS meaning "unmeritted favor/free gift." quite literally. There is a Reason why Paul says in Romans "for the wages of sin is death, but the FREE gift of God is eternal life through christ Jesus our lord." Again grace's literal translation in the Greek is "unmeritted favor/free gift." Salvation is completely free all you have to do is believe that what Jesus did for you 2000 years ago actually worked. He died as a substitute for sin on the cross for you and me because the penalty for sin is death, if the penalty has already been paid and "by grace you have saved through faith" then all you are doing is believing that his payment was for you, a.k.a excepting it and believing you have eternal life as a result of his finished work (and of course believing he rose from the dead as a dead savior can't save you.) The reason you cannot add a work to Christ's finished work is because as Paul makes clear in Romans 11:6 "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." You aren't under grace if you add something to the gospel because grace must be unmeritted for it to be attributed to you. Again, you are just trusting in what Christ already did for you, that's why in ephesians Paul says "after you believed, you were sealed with that holy spirit of promise, which is the GUARANTEE of our inherentance until the redemption of the purchased possession." Paul can't use the word guarantee here if salvation is partially based off of something you do, as obviously YOU can fail in your efforts meaning there is obviously no guarantee. But if it is entirely based off of what Christ did, then there is a guarantee.
you mentioned a "mystical" interpretation of "this bread". yes, these people are enthralled with the mystical, the "mysteries of the rosary", etc. they use that word a lot. i heard some mention of st. john of the cross as a great Mystic. these are they that seek after miracles, and signs, and brag about the ones they possess in their church, via their relics. i just learned that they cut off the arm of jude after he died, supposedly, and parade it around and boast of the miracles attributed to it. i would call that grave robbing. it is a sick thought.
The primary problem with the doctrine of Transubstantiation is that it leads to the worship of the wafer as Almighty God.
The early church fathers wrote about the bread and wine being the body and blood of Christ _in some manner of understanding,_ however there is no reason to take this as meaning that the bread and wine cease to exist but for their accidents (taste, smell, appearance, etc.). In fact, a number of the fathers specifically stated that bread and wine never cease being bread and wine even though they've been consecrated as the body and blood of Christ.
Theodoret: “The mystical tokens or sacraments after the Consecration, depart not from their own nature: for *they remain still in their former substance,* and form, and figure.”
Chrysostom: “The very body of Christ itself is not in the holy vessels, but the mystery or Sacrament thereof is there contained.”
And, “The nature of bread remaineth in the Sacrament.”
"Pope" Gelasius observed in the late 5th Century: “By the Sacraments we are made partakers of the divine nature, *and yet the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to be in them.”*
Augustine wrote much on this subject:
“Our Lord doubted not to say, This is my Body, when he gave a token of his body.”
“Christ took Judas unto his table, whereat he gave unto his Disciples the figure of his body.”
“Unless Sacraments had a certain likeness of the things of which they be sacraments, then indeed they were no Sacraments. And of this likeness oftentimes they bear the names of the things themselves that are *represented by* the sacraments.”
“In sacraments we must consider, not what they be,” (in substance and nature,) “but what they signify.”
“It is a dangerous matter, and a servitude of the soul, to take the sign instead of the thing that is signified.”
“If it be a speech that commandeth, either by forbidding an horrible wickedness, or requiring that which is profitable, it is not figurative: but if it seem to require horrible wickedness, and to forbid what is good and profitable, it is spoken figuratively. Except ye eat (saith Christ) the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. He seemeth to require the doing of that which is horrible, or most wicked: it is a figure, therefore, commanding us to communicate with the passion of Christ, and comfortably and profitably to lay up in our remembrance, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us.”
“It is a more horrible thing to eat man’s flesh, than to kill it: and to drink man’s blood, than it is to shed it.”
“Believe in Christ, and thou hast eaten Christ. For, believing in Christ is the eating of the bread of life.”
Moreover, Augustine made the point that Jesus has ascended into heaven and, according to Scripture, will not be seen again on earth until the Second Advent; at that time, "every eye shall see Him" coming in the clouds. Augustine wrote:
“According to the flesh that the word received : according to that he was born of the Virgin : according to that he was taken of the Jews : according to that he was nailed to the Cross : according to that he was taken down, and lapt in a shroud, and laid in the grave, and rose again, and showed himself. In this respect it is true that he said : Ye shall not evermore have me with you.”
“Until the world be ended, the Lord is above: yet notwithstanding even here is the truth of the Lord. For the body wherein he rose again must needs be in one place.”
Vigilius said likewise: “The flesh of Christ when it was in earth, was not in heaven : and now, because it is in heaven, doubtless it is not on earth.” (Against Eutychus)
Athanasius agreed with this: “Unto how many men could Christ’s body have sufficed, that he should be the food of all the world ? Therefore he made mention of his ascension into heaven, that he might *withdraw them from corporal and fleshly understanding.”*
But Roman Catholics continue to engage in "corporal and fleshly understanding" of the Eucharist!
Exo 20:4,5 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..."
Lev 26:1 "Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God."
The Israelites created a calf of gold, declared it to be Almighty God, and worshiped it. As punishment, Moses had the calf ground up and made the people ingest the gold.
The Roman Catholics create wafers of bread, declare them to be Almighty God, rear them up in monstrances and worship them. Then they ingest the bread.
By RC Tradition, RCs violate God's commandment to not make a likeness of Him nor to worship such things.
Perhaps the RC will object, "God is really present, so it isn't idolatry!" But if the substance of bread remains, the RC is directing worship toward a man-made object. Surely the sinning Israelites thought God was really present in the golden calf, but God still was angry with them.
Jesus would never have told His followers to make or worship an object that was said to be Him. Nor would He have wanted them to literally drink blood, an act that is explicitly forbidden (see Gen. 9:4 and Acts 15, for example).
In the Catholic and Orthodox liturgies, the Eucharist, which is the consecrated bread and wine, is offered through the priest. This offering is believed to be the same offering as Christ's sacrifice on Calvary, and thus a true, pure offering (cf. John 6:25-69, Luke 22:19-20, 1 Cor. 10:16-18, 1 Cor. 11:23-29, etc.). This "ritual" is in harmony with the prophet Malachi who speaks of a day when incense and a pure offering (singular in Hebrew) is offered in all places (plural) (Mal. 1:11). The book of Hebrews (9:23) speaks of the OT sacrifices fulfilled in better "sacrifices" (plural in Greek).1 Yet since Christ's sacrifice is one and unique, how can this be? Because it can be seen in the plural via the one sacrifice's continual re-presentation in the Eucharist in all places as the prophet Malachi foretold. Thus, participating in the "ritual" of the liturgy most profoundly fulfills the call of Scripture.
Here is what Saint Ignatius said regarding:
Transubstantiation-
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes."(Letter to the Smymaeans Chapter VII)
The Bodily ressurrection of Christ-
"For I know that after His [Christ's] ressurrection also He was still posessed of flesh, and I believe that he is so now [Keep in mind that he is writing years AFTER Jesus ascended to Heaven]. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans Chapter III)
Regarding Christ's Deity-
"Ye have done well in recieving Philo and RheusAgathopus as servants of Christ our God, who have followed me for the sake of God, and who give thanks to the Lord in your behalf, because you in every way have refreshed them." (Letter to the Smyrnaeans Chapter X)
Please don't say that this man wasn't inspired, or that this man was not in harmoney with the Bible. This man was a personal friend of Saint Peter, and studied Christ under Saint John. He wrote these letters on his way to Rome where he was EATEN BY LIONS. Saint Ignatius was the Second (or third) Bishop of Antioch, the First place where Christians were called Christians.
Saint Ignatius knew what the Apostles knew about Jesus, and his works come from the same time period as the Books of the Bible.
When a First Century Christian believes this, why don’t you, and why do you refer to these Martyrs as your First Century Christian Brothers😉😉
Jesus looked, tasted and smelled like a human. Since all the elements of humanity are still there, He can't be God?
when Jesus said "destroy this temple" He did NOT clarify it for them.
JOhn 2: 21 "But he spake of the temple of his body."
@@flyswatter6470 you do realize that he did not say those words to them right? that text was for the reader.
@@lepton31415 First, Catholics believe that the author of the bible is God. So, those words were spoken by Him. Second, Tim’s point was that when Jesus gives a metaphor, either He explicitly makes it clear that it is a metaphor or symbol, or the narrator does, as in this case.
Next, as Tim said, when the Jews celebrated the sacrifice of the Passover, they believed that they were truly participating in passing from slavery to freedom and giving thanks for it, just as if they were personally there. As with any sacrifice, they participated by eating the lamb.
Remember, Jesus Himself participated in this sacrifice. How did Jesus participate? He offered Himself as the lamb, and told the apostles to “do this” with Him as the remembrance sacrifice. Did He suggest some other way of eating the sacrificial lamb?
@@flyswatter6470 No. Sorry but that is completely wrong. Tim said that every time Jesus used a metaphor that he clarified it for the people He was speaking to!!! not the "narrator" omg 🙄.
@@lepton31415 Is there a place in your bible where Jesus says something like. "I don't expect you to take all of this seriously?" He called Himself a door, a gate, a shepherd, etc. But He IS those things. He never said he was made of wood, but entrance is only through Him. He is the one who brings back the lost sheep, etc. So, if He says He is bread, He is. And bread is not something that you read. It is something you eat. And it is miraculously from heaven, like the manna, (which also isn't something you read.) I can understand if you don't agree, or understand, but how can you think it ridiculous for Christians to believe that He meant exactly what He said? -for 2000 years?
There is another way... Lutherans hold the view of the real presence while not holding to tansubstatiation. Christ is truly present in, with, and under the bread. Its like th incarnation. Jesus didnt just appear as a man, but He was man and God.
Its bread and His Body, its wine and His Blood.. its a mystery for sure, but in the Lutheran view is means is.
Anglicans tend to hold a Real Presence view also, although it is not necessarily required to so believe. Some Anglicans hold a more memorialist view. Nothing wrong with either view IMO, so long as we don't mistakenly claim that the bread and wine cease to exist. The early church writers (first 2 or 3 centuries) certainly indicated their recognition of Christ's body and blood _in some way or other,_ although they generally didn't explain exactly in what way they understood it as such.
42:30 So gregg doesn't use terms like the trinity or homoousios?
going back to the queen of heaven and making cakes to her, i have read that the pagans did this to their gods, and then ate the cakes or whatever they made as if it was the flesh and blood of their gods. so this eucharist, mysticism, seems to draw from pagan practices, which is not uncommon in other catholic rituals. making statues of saints and adorning them with flowers and such at the foot of them. i was raised catholic as a little girl and i remember bringing flowers to school for the statue of mary. pretty sure they showed her with her foot crushing the head of a serpent also.
As a (former) cradle Roman Catholic, I can attest that it is extremely difficult to overcome the misconceptions and out-of-context interpretation which the RCC drills into its laity. It took me several years of reading these Bible passages, over and over, before I could understand them.
The best I can sum up John 6 is by saying this: in no way was Jesus teaching about Holy Communion an entire year before the Last Supper took place; instead, the primary truth Jesus kept trying to drill home to those skeptics was *their need to believe in Him.* Jesus repeats this truth in verses 28-29, 35, 40, and 47.
These people just saw a stupendous miracle when Jesus fed 5,000 from a handful of loaves and fishes. What is their reaction? Are they ready to believe in Jesus as the Messiah (Savior)? No! Instead, they follow Jesus across the lake _to ask for more food!_
Joh 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
Joh 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Joh 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
Joh 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
These people should have been falling on their faces before Jesus after seeing Him multiply the loaves and fishes. They should have been hailing Him as Messiah! Instead they want more free meals and they demand another miracle. They want Jesus to make bread-like manna fall from the sky, like God did in Moses' day!
This is the unbelief Jesus is dealing with. Their hearts are hardened. Jesus tells them over and over the foundational truth that He wants to drive home: believe in Jesus. We already saw Him tell them in verse 29: "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." He keeps hammering on this:
Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Joh 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Joh 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Joh 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
Joh 6:40 *And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.*
Jesus likens Himself to the manna, the bread from heaven. Jesus says, I am the bread of life. Does Jesus mean He is literal bread? No, He is drawing a parallel, a metaphor.
But they still don't get it. They say, we know this dude. He's a home boy. How can he say he came down from heaven? Jesus replies,
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Joh 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
Joh 6:47 *Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.*
Joh 6:48 I am that bread of life.
There it is a second time: “I am that bread;” did Jesus transform Himself into literal baked bread just then? Of course not! We do not take this statement literally; rather, we understand that Jesus is likening Himself metaphorically (figuratively) to the breadlike “manna.” So how do we "consume" Jesus and get eternal life? Jesus tells us in verse 47: we “eat” Him (so to speak) *by believing in Him: "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."* To have faith in Jesus is to receive Him. To believe in Jesus is to partake of His atoning sacrifice. To trust in Jesus is to receive the eternal sustenance of God that will cause us to never spiritually hunger or spiritually thirst every again. Jesus kept stressing to them, over and over (verses 28-29, 35-40, 47) that they need to believe in Him, their Messiah!
Jesus continued to identify Himself metaphorically and symbolically with the manna, the "bread from heaven" of Moses' day, because that manna foreshadowed His incarnation. In this rich symbolism, Jesus likens Himself to food one can eat. In a spiritual sense He is "bread from heaven" that is alive before them:
Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Notice the key phrase in verse 51. Jesus has *likened* His mortal body to "living bread," and He said that this figurative "living bread" is the mortal flesh and blood He would (one year later) give up on the cross: "my flesh which I will (future tense) give..." Jesus is foretelling His self-sacrifice on the cross, where He would give or ‘feed’ Himself (so to speak) to the whole world for the remission of their sins.
How do they respond? They respond in more unbelief:
Joh 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
They just don't get it! They think Jesus is saying they should literally eat His physical body! Are they dumb, or what! They are beyond perceiving the spiritual truth Jesus is trying to impart. He's casting pearls before swine. So this is when He grosses them out by taking the symbolism to the extreme:
Joh 6:53,56,58 Then Jesus said unto them, 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... He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him...he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Those people were never going to receive the truth Jesus was saying: that everyone who believes in Him will receive eternal life. So He walks away with His disciples, and when they are alone He explains the crux of the matter to them:
Joh 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Joh 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.
Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not...
Even today, Roman Catholics think they are getting salvation out of eating Jesus' flesh and drinking Jesus' blood in a physical, literal sense. Even today, RCs "believe not" that Jesus' words were spiritual, that only the Holy Spirit can quicken (give life) to a person through faith, and that literal eating of flesh "profiteth nothing." Today, as then, we still have people who think in natural terms instead of spiritual terms. They think this conversation dealt with things that go into the mouth, when Jesus was dealing with what goes into the heart (the spirit). Throughout that encounter which is recorded in John 6, Jesus kept telling them that the key to eternal life was to believe in Him (v. 29, 35. 40, & 47). Over and over, Jesus said that the key was to have faith in Him. But people still mistakenly think that the key is to eat Him!
We know that drinking blood, particularly human blood, was known to be heinous. Yet some people today still choose to believe that Jesus was commanding people to literally drink human blood for eternal life. Jesus would not command people to eat actual human flesh and to drink actual blood, in violation of Mosaic Law.
We also know that salvation is by God's grace, received through faith and not by works, yet some people today still want to believe that works, overt acts such as eating and drinking, or being splashed with water, are necessary components for receiving salvation. Jesus would not tell people to do an overt act to gain eternal life... not when He so often emphasized that the only work we can properly perform for eternal life is to just believe in Him!
Look at what Augustine wrote about the Eucharist:
“Believe in Christ, and thou hast eaten Christ. For believing in Christ is the eating of the Bread of life.”
We "consume" Christ, not with the mouth, but by the spirit with faith and thanksgiving.
Vs 54, "Whoever eats My flesh, and drinks My blood, has eternal life; and I will
raise him up on the last day." Did He say to eat the symbol of His flesh?
Vs 55, Jesus said, "For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed."
Vs 56, Jesus said, "He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood dwells in Me, and I in him."
Did He say, 'He that eats a symbol of My flesh...'. How can a mere symbol fulfill this promise?
Does only a symbol of Christ dwell in us? I thought GOD Himself dwelt within us, 1John 4:12-13.
Vs 59, This verse shows that Jesus taught this discourse to all the people.
Vs 60,They doubt a third time when many disciples said, "This is a hard saying, who can hear it"?
The Jews were instilled by many Old Testament verses, admonishing them not to consume blood.
See Deut 12:23, Lev 17:11and 14. They must have thought this was something akin to cannibalism.
Is this what you think too?
At any point did Jesus back down? Explain to me, if this chapter is symbolic, why did He not explain the symbolism to them?
Vs 61, Jesus did not back down, for He said, "Does this offend you?"
He knew their thoughts and He certainly knew the Old Testament verses about the consumption of blood.
In the next verse, He separated spiritual things from earthly things.
Vs 63*, Jesus said, "It is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life."
Did He say He was speaking figuratively or in parables? This is the second verse detractors use to try to "prove" that Jesus spoke figuratively for the whole chapter. Did Jesus say "My" flesh? No, He said "the" flesh. What Jesus had said was, that we cannot accept this mystery if we accept it in too human a way, by having an earthly view of things. Those who can only think of cannibalism, are they not having an earthly view?
See John 3:6, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Verse 63 means that we should not have a carnal human understanding of His words, but a spiritual understanding.
In John, chapter 6, Jesus had not only called the 12 Apostles, there was also much larger group of other disciples. Things seemed to be going pretty well. That is until Jesus said “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,dwelleth in me, and I in him.” This was too much for many of his disciples and “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus turns to the 12 and asks, “Will ye also go away? Simon Peter gives the same answer that I find myself saying to those who tell me I should leave the Catholic Church for this reason or that one, “Lord, to whom shall we go?” No matter what a certain priest does, no matter what scandals hit the church, despite whatever corruption or abuse of power might exist, and despite whatever mistakes the Church has made throughout history, “to whom shall we go?” for here is the body and blood of Christ given for a sinner as miserable as I.
Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.
Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Toutoestin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood😢😢
" See Hebrews 9:14, 27-28. 1376 ... "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body [Mt 26:26, Mk 14:22, John 6:55] that he was offering under the species [appearance] of bread ... there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood ...transubstantiation."
1 John 5:13 I write these things to you so that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God.
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,dwelleth in me, and I in him.” This was too much for many of his disciples and “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus turns to the 12 and asks, “Will ye also go away?
Vs 61, Jesus did not back down, for He said, "Does this offend you?" it offends protestants. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
There is no other passage in the New testament other than John 6: 35-56 where Jesus emphasizes his teaching repeatedly. In the Gospel of John, four times our Lord says that he is the bread and five times He says that its his flesh we have to eat. He instituted this sacrament by giving his flesh to eat in the upper room in Jerusalem on the eve of the Passover (Matthew 26:26-28) We understand that Eucharistic sacrament he instituted was again celebrated at Emmaus after his resurrection (Luke 24: 30-31).😢😢
@@bibleman8010 Write all you want, but I simply cannot believe that Jesus would be so grossly negligent as to state _only one time_ a crucial requirement for receiving eternal life, while leaving that critical detail out during all the other times when He mentioned eternal life. Nor that the Holy Spirit was negligent when inspiring the writers to record the important truths of the Gospel.
Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
Joh 3:15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever -eats his flesh- believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 Whoever -eats his flesh and drinks his blood- believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
Rom 10:9 because, if you -eat with the mouth the flesh of Jesus- confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one -consumes God- confesses and is saved.
Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith -and through eating Jesus' flesh- . And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not a result of works -other than the work of ingesting Jesus- , so that no one may boast.
Sorry, I just don't buy it.
As a cradle catholic I understand your ignorance, I never read the Bible so it was so easy for pastor Bob with his dr degree in theology, to teach me such ignorance. Note: they tell you early Christian’s were good till Catholic Church started in 382 by Constantine and adopted pagan rituals!
So now of course I know better and can say even before the so called pagan doctrine Catholics believed in the Eucharist; sometimes Protestants talk about early Christians like Ignatius, they fail to mention he was a bishop to the church of Antioch, where they first call us Christian. Below is a statement from one of his epistles around 107 AD
Letter to the Smyrnaens
They [the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
Again you can interpret or you can let early Christians that knew the language do it for you. Unfortunately now a days a Dr degree buys you good articulate words that lets you lead other people far from the truth. Or you can go back to your Catholic Church where you have the scripture and historic evidence to back it up.
@@JuanGonzalez-kb3gm Ignatius' often-flowery language could be understood literally as you do, or it could be understood metaphorically. In the case of the letter to the Smyrnians, Ignatius was specifically disputing the Gnostic view that Jesus did not literally rise from the dead in the flesh. That is why he commented that the Gnostics abstained from Communion: it was contrary to their beliefs to take elements which represented Christ's flesh and blood because they thought His flesh was still dead somewhere.
The early church fathers frequently wrote about the bread and wine being the body and blood of Christ _in some manner of understanding,_ however there is insufficient evidence suggesting that we must take this as meaning that the bread and wine cease to exist but for their accidents (taste, smell, appearance, etc.) the way the RC Transubstantiation doctrine claims. In fact, a number of the fathers specifically stated that bread and wine never cease being bread and wine even though they've been consecrated as the body and blood of Christ.
Theodoret: “The mystical tokens or sacraments after the Consecration, depart not from their own nature: for *they remain still in their former substance,* and form, and figure.”
Chrysostom: “The very body of Christ itself is not in the holy vessels, but the mystery or Sacrament thereof is there contained.”
And, “The nature of bread remaineth in the Sacrament.”
"Pope" Gelasius observed in the late 5th Century: “By the Sacraments we are made partakers of the divine nature, *and yet the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to be in them.”*
Augustine wrote much on this subject:
“Our Lord doubted not to say, This is my Body, when he gave a token of his body.”
“Christ took Judas unto his table, whereat he gave unto his Disciples the figure of his body.”
“Unless Sacraments had a certain likeness of the things of which they be sacraments, then indeed they were no Sacraments. And of this likeness oftentimes they bear the names of the things themselves that are *represented by* the sacraments.”
“In sacraments we must consider, not what they be,” (in substance and nature,) “but what they signify.”
“It is a dangerous matter, and a servitude of the soul, to take the sign instead of the thing that is signified.”
“If it be a speech that commandeth, either by forbidding an horrible wickedness, or requiring that which is profitable, it is not figurative: but if it seem to require horrible wickedness, and to forbid what is good and profitable, it is spoken figuratively. Except ye eat (saith Christ) the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. He seemeth to require the doing of that which is horrible, or most wicked: it is a figure, therefore, commanding us to communicate with the passion of Christ, and comfortably and profitably to lay up in our remembrance, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us.”
“It is a more horrible thing to eat man’s flesh, than to kill it: and to drink man’s blood, than it is to shed it.”
“Believe in Christ, and thou hast eaten Christ. For, believing in Christ is the eating of the bread of life.”
Moreover, Augustine made the point that Jesus has ascended into heaven and, according to Scripture, will not be seen again on earth until the Second Advent; at that time, "every eye shall see Him" coming in the clouds. Augustine wrote:
“According to the flesh that the word received : according to that he was born of the Virgin : according to that he was taken of the Jews : according to that he was nailed to the Cross : according to that he was taken down, and lapt in a shroud, and laid in the grave, and rose again, and showed himself. In this respect it is true that he said : Ye shall not evermore have me with you.”
“Until the world be ended, the Lord is above: yet notwithstanding even here is the truth of the Lord. For the body wherein he rose again must needs be in one place.”
Vigilius said likewise: “The flesh of Christ when it was in earth, was not in heaven : and now, because it is in heaven, doubtless it is not on earth.” (Against Eutychus)
Athanasius agreed with this: “Unto how many men could Christ’s body have sufficed, that he should be the food of all the world ? Therefore he made mention of his ascension into heaven, that he might *withdraw them from corporal and fleshly understanding.”*
But Roman Catholics continue to engage in "corporal and fleshly understanding" of the Eucharist!
Exo 20:4,5 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..."
Lev 26:1 "Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God."
The Israelites created a calf of gold, declared it to be Almighty God, and worshiped it. As punishment, Moses had the calf ground up and made the people ingest the gold.
The Roman Catholics create wafers of bread, declare them to be Almighty God, rear them up in monstrances and worship them. Then they ingest the bread.
By RC Tradition, RCs violate God's commandment to not make a likeness of Him nor to worship such things.
Jesus would never have told His followers to make or worship an object that was said to be Him. Nor would He have wanted them to literally drink blood, an act that is explicitly forbidden (see Gen. 9:4 and Acts 15, for example). Jesus would not teach us to sin.
❤️
Jn 6 is key to the Catholic belief in the Eucharist and it actually destroys their belief. The Jews were mistaken proof that they were mistaken is Jesus reply to his disciples in v60-62. The disciples grumbled but the context was not in eating Jesus flesh. Jesus reply to them was what if yoh see the son of man ascend. The whole context that Jesus lays out is that he is the bread that came down from heaven. Steve answer is key that in John the Jews misunderstood him and they did here even when Jrsus emphasized his point they still didn't get it. He was the bread that came down from heaven and to eat is to come to him and believe.
" See Hebrews 9:14, 27-28. 1376 ... "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body [Mt 26:26, Mk 14:22, John 6:55] that he was offering under the species [appearance] of bread ... there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood ...transubstantiation."
1 John 5:13 I write these things to you so that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God.
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,dwelleth in me, and I in him.” This was too much for many of his disciples and “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus turns to the 12 and asks, “Will ye also go away?
Vs 61, Jesus did not back down, for He said, "Does this offend you?" it offends protestants. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
There is no other passage in the New testament other than John 6: 35-56 where Jesus emphasizes his teaching repeatedly. In the Gospel of John, four times our Lord says that he is the bread and five times He says that its his flesh we have to eat. He instituted this sacrament by giving his flesh to eat in the upper room in Jerusalem on the eve of the Passover (Matthew 26:26-28) We understand that Eucharistic sacrament he instituted was again celebrated at Emmaus after his resurrection (Luke 24: 30-31).
@@bibleman8010 You are reading it like a Catholic not like the the authors intended. Please watch the video again and reconsider. The key as Tim Staples said is Jn 6 and and Jesus is not asking people to eat him literally. The Jews thought he was and were mistaken see it Steve's reply concerning this. Jesus emphasis was on his being the bread that came down from heaven which the Jews didn't get and focused on eating his flesh. Notice Jesus answer to his disciples when he knew they were grumbling v60-63 he didn't say anything about eating his flesh but that he would ascend to heaven. He was, the bread that came down from an woukd go back to heaven. This is what offended his disciple and why some walked away.
@@jotink1 - In the book of John, Jesus tells and instructs to the people (Jews) about The Eucharist.
(John 6:43, 51-55, 66-68) “‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ 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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.’ . . . After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus said to the twelve, ‘Do you also wish to go away?’ Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life’
Vs 54, "Whoever eats My flesh, and drinks My blood, has eternal life; and I will
raise him up on the last day." Did He say to eat the symbol of His flesh?
Vs 55, Jesus said, "For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed."
Vs 56, Jesus said, "He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood dwells in Me, and I in him."
Did He say, 'He that eats a symbol of My flesh...'. How can a mere symbol fulfill this promise?
Does only a symbol of Christ dwell in us? I thought GOD Himself dwelt within us, 1John 4:12-13.
Vs 59, This verse shows that Jesus taught this discourse to all the people.
Vs 60,They doubt a third time when many disciples said, "This is a hard saying, who can hear it"?
The Jews were instilled by many Old Testament verses, admonishing them not to consume blood.
See Deut 12:23, Lev 17:11and 14. They must have thought this was something akin to cannibalism.
Is this what you think too?
At any point did Jesus back down? Explain to me, if this chapter is symbolic, why did He not explain the symbolism to them?
Vs 61, Jesus did not back down, for He said, "Does this offend you?"
He knew their thoughts and He certainly knew the Old Testament verses about the consumption of blood.
In the next verse, He separated spiritual things from earthly things.
Vs 63*, Jesus said, "It is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life."
Did He say He was speaking figuratively or in parables? This is the second verse detractors use to try to "prove" that Jesus spoke figuratively for the whole chapter. Did Jesus say "My" flesh? No, He said "the" flesh. What Jesus had said was, that we cannot accept this mystery if we accept it in too human a way, by having an earthly view of things. Those who can only think of cannibalism, are they not having an earthly view?
See John 3:6, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Verse 63 means that we should not have a carnal human understanding of His words, but a spiritual understanding.
In John, chapter 6, Jesus had not only called the 12 Apostles, there was also much larger group of other disciples. Things seemed to be going pretty well. That is until Jesus said “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,dwelleth in me, and I in him.” This was too much for many of his disciples and “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus turns to the 12 and asks, “Will ye also go away? Simon Peter gives the same answer that I find myself saying to those who tell me I should leave the Catholic Church for this reason or that one, “Lord, to whom shall we go?” No matter what a certain priest does, no matter what scandals hit the church, despite whatever corruption or abuse of power might exist, and despite whatever mistakes the Church has made throughout history, “to whom shall we go?” for here is the body and blood of Christ given for a sinner as miserable as I.
Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.
Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Toutoestin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood😘😘
@@bibleman8010 Your first sentence is wrong. He instructs them about himself being bread. The Jews chose the story of manna from heaven as a sign and they asked Jesus for a sign. He went on to say he was the bread that came down from heaven. The whole point in Jesus discourse, is get the Jews to believe in him. There are approx 27 verses before Jesus gets to eating his flesh and drinking his blood and they are only 7 verses. The Jews, misunderstood Jesus, regarding eating. Jesus wanted them to belueve in him. The disciples grumpled not at eating and drinking Jesus flesh and blood but that he said he was the the bread that came down from heaven. The proof of this is Jesus reply to his disciples after they grumpled and said it was a hard saying. He said nothing about his flesh but about him ascending to where he was v62. What the disciples found offensive was not eating Jesus flesh because they knew what Jesus meant about believing the offence was him coming down from heaven.
@@bibleman8010 Why do you think the the disciples were offended by only 7 verses 52-59 of Jesus words and totally dismiss the 27 other verses from v25 on? These verses from 25 on are key to Jesus reply in v 62. His reply seems out of context if it was regarding eating his flesh but in context if he was the bread that came down from heaven.
Tim staples is proving once again why he is one of the best in Apologetics. Fair play to steve for having him on.
What makes him one of the best?
@@JRey-re9rl I think his rhetoric is better then the rest and his ability to think on his feet. Wbu?
@@evancawley3236 I don’t think he’s a good apologist or speaker. He likes to interrupt a lot; he tries to dominate the time; he proof texts, as if quoting several Scriptures, without exegeting them is valid; and he commits several logical fallacies, like begging the question.
@@JRey-re9rl haha that's fun y because I thought Steve was interrupting alot 😂 what type of Christian would you call yourself? Also who do you think is the best Catholic apolgiest?
@@evancawley3236 I am a Reformed Baptist. I think Trent Horn is decent. Roman Catholic arguments are just played out, though. The horse is decomposed, so there is nothing to beat.
In remembrance of me.... yes,,, fellowship ( breaking bread ) and suffering for his name,,, the cup of suffering come to all who truly go on to know the Lord,,,, they will always be rejected and suffer at the hands of the religious establishment. " If they hate you, you know they hated me." Are you suffering out there christian? Do men hate you? If not, you are not showing the Lords death.
Steve dominated by simply being honest with the text. Michael Heiser would have contextually smashed Tim as well.
Now he is a Calvinist catholic? 😂
What is a Calvinist Catholic?
Tim now believes election and predestination that only who the Father draws to the Son is given the Spirit and gift of the faith.
" See Hebrews 9:14, 27-28. 1376 ... "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body [Mt 26:26, Mk 14:22, John 6:55] that he was offering under the species [appearance] of bread ... there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood ...transubstantiation."
1 John 5:13 I write these things to you so that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God.
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,dwelleth in me, and I in him.” This was too much for many of his disciples and “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus turns to the 12 and asks, “Will ye also go away?
Vs 61, Jesus did not back down, for He said, "Does this offend you?" it offends protestants. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
There is no other passage in the New testament other than John 6: 35-56 where Jesus emphasizes his teaching repeatedly. In the Gospel of John, four times our Lord says that he is the bread and five times He says that its his flesh we have to eat. He instituted this sacrament by giving his flesh to eat in the upper room in Jerusalem on the eve of the Passover (Matthew 26:26-28) We understand that Eucharistic sacrament he instituted was again celebrated at Emmaus after his resurrection (Luke 24: 30-31).
Please go and study the early church and the early church fathers. I’m talking the first 300 years of the church From the direct disciples of the apostles and so on. It’s so blatantly obvious they all were Catholic. Please do your own research. You have to choose to be blind with so much historical knowledge readily available to everyone.
Been there, done that. The Roman Catholic Church did but exist at that time. Although some unbiblical traditions had begun, they didn't believe in much that the RCC teaches, things that were invented centuries later. ~ Jason
Parroting historical facts doesnt necessarily is the truth. You claiming catholicity doesnt its the truth.
Scripture is where believers draw the line because it was inspired by the Holy Spirit, not early church nor fathers.
Tell me early church in corinth and galatians are true
Jesus said
This is my body
Jesus said
My flesh is real food.
Protestants. No it’s not
Are you sure?
pArT 5 Points Revisited - ruclips.net/video/FiA4GXEY5pk/видео.html