Does This Verse Disprove the Eucharist?

[@Joelthinker]

Definitely, 100% need a video on how gnosticism has crept into modernity and protestantism.

[@stephenjohnson7915]

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.

[@benjaminwarsocki1663]

​@@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.

[@sakamotosan1887]

@@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.

[@vinciblegaming6817]

@@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?

[@sakamotosan1887]

@@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.

[@chadnelson33]

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.

[@Sharkman1963]

Welcome home. We missed you.

[@danielcarriere1958]

Amen! Takes courage to do what you are doing. It can't be easy to turn your back on this. God bless you!

[@mottledbrain]

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 ".

[@bibleman8010]

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 kzbin.info/www/bejne/nF7NmqF8YrRmnK8

[@hirehammer925]

Don’t do it. Read my comments before doing anything rash.

[@josh39684]

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

[@GenX-Trad]

God bless you!!!🙏🏻🙏🏻 I fully understand what you’re saying. God is so good!!

[@Sharkman1963]

Welcome to your eternal home.

[@johnbrion4565]

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]

Also if you enjoy reading check out Jesus and the Jewish roots of the Eucharist by brant pitre. Amazing book.

[@Sharkman1963]

@@johnbrion4565 That's a wonderful book. He also did an hour-long video on the subject, which is brilliant: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hmWYc3t6h6Zqprcsi=_hvKXaIQgS7Zxi5H

[@sivad1025]

I remember being a Protestant last year and trying to die on this hill. And, over the course of many KZbin comment section arguments, coming to terms with the fact that it really doesn't prove much of anything. Catholicism is very humbling

[@irok1]

Wait, so there are more people that change through comments?

[@vinciblegaming6817]

It is humbling.

[@concrete3030]

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...

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

@@irok1 The reasoning, and historical references. As well as source materials provided.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

I too have come to the conclusion that Jesus wasn't lying to us when He said, "This is my body" and "This is my blood". Catholicism has that part correct but they completely crater when they impose the extra layer of a "miracle" on the bread and wine. Nowhere in the New Testament does it prescribe a miracle be performed to magically change the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood. As with all things in the kingdom of God, the New Testament relies on the faith of those who wish to receive. You cannot receive what you will not believe. Therefore, for the recipient, it doesn't matter what kind of miracle a clergyman claims to be doing. It may or may not be the actual body and blood of Jesus - depending on the recipient. But Catholicism cannot have that, right? In Catholicism, the lay person is incidental to the process. All eyes are on the clergyman. This proves what I say all the time: Christianity is for people Catholicism is for the clergy. "Do this in memory of me" does NOT require a miracle.

[@classicalteacher]

The early pagans believed Christians were cannibals. The early Christians believed in the Eucharist as Jesus's real presence.

[@HunnysPlaylists]

that was projection because the pgns WERE cannibals.

[@HunnysPlaylists]

St Laurence mocks this in his Martyrdom.

[@jellyphase]

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.

[@James-ll3jb]

@@classicalteacher indeed they did.

[@tafazziReadChannelDescription]

@@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-

[@markwelch9250]

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.

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

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.

[@j.g.4942]

Well Calvinists think Christ's humanity is locked away someplace, so maybe it makes sense to those Enthusiasts.

[@carolinajackson7621]

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

[@chasnikisher7006]

​@@carolinajackson7621 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

[@jeff55555]

@@carolinajackson7621 penal substitution theory is bad theology.

[@Qrischun]

A video on how Protestants and Gnostics share some similar beliefs

[@ChristianTheChicken]

Very good. Yes, I would like a video on the Gnostics.

[@deepusnttf432]

I too

[@ShaneShelldriick]

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

[@sakamotosan1887]

@@ShaneShelldriick You see no problem with sharing beliefs with the early heretics decried as 'anti-Christ'?

[@EricAlHarb]

Im Orthodox, the protestant position invalidates the cross.

[@markmeyer4532]

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.

[@AllanKoayTC]

video on Gnosticism? yes, please!

[@bernardauberson7218]

Dans quel sens gnosticisme ? Positive où négative , la gnose est la Connaissance !

[@e_out]

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!

[@TrickeryMan]

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.

[@jmferris542]

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)

[@TrickeryMan]

@@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 :)

[@jmferris542]

​@@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.

[@JanGavlas]

​@@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.

[@femaleKCRoyalsFan]

Jesus didn't use a parable during the bread of life discourse

[@justthink8952]

Well said

[@toddgallo1759]

No he used hyperbole

[@Michael-bk5nz]

@@toddgallo1759hyperbole for what exactly?

[@john-paulgies4313]

He did, however, use typology.

[@toddgallo1759]

​@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.

[@jamestay2377]

I have another suggestion: Videos going through many major heresies condemned by the Church

[@SammyJ..]

The channel Catholic Culture has a series on this

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

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.

[@johnbrowne2170]

Or how about the many heresies in the Roman Catholic Church?

[@TheCatholicNerd]

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.

[@BensWorkshop]

Also Luther, Calvin and the Church of England held to the real presence (though not transubstantiation) and Lutherans and the CofE still do.

[@llamaalpaca5563]

@@BensWorkshop Presbyterians hold a spiritual-but-not-corporeal presence.

[@BensWorkshop]

@@llamaalpaca5563 That would seem to make it more symbolic than real.

[@MegaTechno2000]

“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.

[@llamaalpaca5563]

@@BensWorkshop Spiritual reality is still real though? The Presbyterians are in the camp of Real Presence, albeit different from Lutherans.

[@michaelogrady232]

"How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" Fast forward to the Last Supper.

[@geoffjs]

Jn 6:66, the first Protestants! With God there are no coincidences!

[@caseyk.1386]

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!

[@shamelesspopery]

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!

[@chrissiah999]

Great explanation. Without the Spirit, it is difficult to see. Thank God for you and your ministry.

[@KevinSanchez-zh8km]

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!

[@sakamotosan1887]

@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.

[@tomkulehenganwing3006]

Well said Bro 🤝✌️

[@NevetsWC1134]

Marriage is already being destroyed. Look at how the handle divorce

[@MrsYasha1984]

Oh, i hate the 'resurrection is symbolic' narrative. Itt is rampant under liberal theologians. Sadly, in catholic institutions too.

[@sharonodom6575]

​@@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?!

[@ApostolicStorm]

Joe always bringing the fire- the Holy Spirit fire! ✨🔥✨

[@GranMaese]

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.

[@ToddJambon]

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.

[@rexfordtugwelljr]

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.

[@geoffjs]

@@rexfordtugwelljr Jn 6:66, the first Protestants! With God there are no coincidences!

[@macbride33]

And the fact that Jesus knows the hearts of men. John 18:37

[@MegaTechno2000]

“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.

[@tomkulehenganwing3006]

​@@geoffjsJohn 6:60-66 is the real picture when the spirit of protestantism are manifested...😢

[@BensWorkshop]

@@MegaTechno2000 Absolutely.

[@RejiThomas1]

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...."

[@MegaTechno2000]

“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.

[@susanevangelist6037]

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.

[@shamelesspopery]

Welcome home, Susan!

[@BensWorkshop]

Welcome home!

[@TimDeGroot1988]

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.

[@BensWorkshop]

I look forward to being able to welcome you home! I will pray for your journey.

[@rsissel1]

Protestant: "Christ's flesh is of no avail!" EO/RC....slowly start backing away

[@voxangeli9205]

LOL, quite the contrary!😂😅😊

[@gregorybarrett4998]

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]

The only way to believe in God and follow him is by eating Him once a week?

[@BensWorkshop]

@@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.”

[@gregorybarrett4998]

@@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.

[@mussman717word]

How to Be Christian FINALLY dropped Part II of his epic journey about the Eucharist, for those interested. It's brilliant!

[@shamelesspopery]

Totally!

[@Hospitaller1099]

A very well done and much needed video.

[@MrProsat]

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???

[@gerardogilsanz1171]

Thanks Joe, you are great!!!

[@redschannel6527]

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

[@MrsYasha1984]

May God bless you, and guide you to where He wants you to be. Take care my dear brother in Christ!

[@shamelesspopery]

🙌

[@duckgrow]

I’d appreciate an episode on Gnosticism.

[@AlbinoCordeiroJunior]

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”.

[@adjoa-anima]

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?

[@AlbinoCordeiroJunior]

@@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.

[@adjoa-anima]

@@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?

[@AlbinoCordeiroJunior]

@@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.

[@adjoa-anima]

@@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

[@JoseLopez-zd9sk]

God bless you all. Peace be with you all. Happy to be a Catholic. Thank you Mr. Joe for the informative video. God bless 😊🙏

[@danieldelacruz6033]

I just had a debate over the eucharist and got stumped by this verse. Thankful to see God’s timing by you posting this

[@someonesomewhere6316]

A man with the Holy Spirit! God bless Joe Hersjmeyer.

[@adjoa-anima]

No he doesn't have the holy spirit

[@someonesomewhere6316]

@@adjoa-anima You're demon possessed

[@WorshiptheTrinity]

8:50 Joe please make this video. This is exactly what some of my friends need.

[@seanneal9406]

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.

[@danielcarriere1958]

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.

[@irritated888]

Gnostic video would be great!

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

Gnostic Spurgeon would be a hit video. Do it!

[@charlesudoh6034]

A beautiful explanation.

[@diamondrg3556]

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.

[@damnedmadman]

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!

[@gijoe508]

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.

[@atgred]

Protestants: EITHER/OR Catholics: BOTH/AND

[@geoffjs]

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

[@normmcinnis4102]

His disciples were baffled. Much how like Nocodemus was baffled about being 'born again'.

[@SailorSabol]

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

[@vinciblegaming6817]

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.

[@MegaTechno2000]

“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.

[@grandpahand7410]

Please do a video, it is most needed in these times.

[@Stephane.French.Catholic.An.33]

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!

[@orbeuniversity]

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

[@jeremyha29072]

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)

[@BensWorkshop]

Welcome home!

[@PizzaDisguise]

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?

[@rexlion4510]

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).

[@narrobruna]

Thanks for sharing

[@josiahhockenberry9846]

Wow. I would definitely like a video on the gnostic idea of "body bad, spirit good". Thank you!

[@wallsign4575]

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.

[@jeffreyanderson8966]

Great explanation Joe! Would love to hear further explanation about Charles Spurgeon.

[@thovenach]

Wow. I always put off listening to your videos and I have no idea why.

[@retrocalypse]

Absolutely want to see a deep dive on Prognosticanism!

[@georgwagner937]

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.

[@geoffjs]

But without a validly ordained priesthood to confect the Eucharist, Protestantism is forced to believe in the symbolic Eucharist!

[@georgwagner937]

@@geoffjs why?

[@geoffjs]

@@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!

[@georgwagner937]

@@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?

[@CatholicSaintslayIncorrupt]

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!

[@fintan3563]

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

[@smart_joey_4179]

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.

[@fintan3563]

@@smart_joey_4179 Wow! Thanks. I feel like I’m back in the seminary again?

[@jmferris542]

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.

[@timrichardson4018]

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.

[@ChericeGraham]

Thanks for the qualification "many." Lutherans, for instance, are an exception.

[@burkeiowa]

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.

[@tomasznikiel2508]

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.

[@jmferris542]

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.

[@samtatge8299]

Yes, please do a video on Gnosticism and it’s modern forms.

[@WC3isBetterThanReforged]

Please do a video on gnosticism and the modern church.

[@Fiddleslip]

everyone should go watch How To Be Christian's 2 part series on John 6/the eucharist

[@yomama5645]

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.

[@brucedavenport7016]

Communion is a very important part of a Christians walk in Christ. 1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. For a Christian to remember what Jesus' did for them is extremely significant. However, Christians do not believe in the catholic dogma of literal trans substantiation.

[@martina.echeverria3767]

Please make a video of Charles Spurgeon

[@TylerByars]

I would love to have an episode breaking down why gnosticism is wrong - a protestant teetering on the edge of Catholicism/Orthodoxy

[@CatholicProdigal]

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 ❤

[@bjvaskejr]

Please elaborate on Ezekiel 3 and revelation 10 . I'm convinced of the true presence but I do think these and possibly more have something to do with the eucharist. Just as the gospel of john begins . In the beginning was the word and the word is God.

[@davidfabien7220]

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.

[@Leonard-td5rn]

Mass is continuation of Christ s sacrifice not a reinactment

[@TheBadTrad]

And if Jesus’ saying the flesh profits nothing means His flesh, then it also means the Incarnation is meaningless. That’s very dangerous ground for these prots to tread upon…🤷🏻‍♂️

[@MegaTechno2000]

“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.

[@TheBadTrad]

@@MegaTechno2000 Amen. Thank you, Jesus for your amazing gift of the Most Holy Eucharist!

[@aiaiaie4635]

8:24 Ahah! I was wondering why you had put a painting of you, and then I realised you were talking about Charles Spurgeon

[@shamelesspopery]

Hilarious! I shared this on Facebook, and it led to many laughs...

[@andyfitzgerald2312]

Thank you for a very informative vidéo. I have wondered a lot if the Eucharist is the resurrected body or the earthly body.

[@Spartan10k]

“Do you want to see a deep dive…” Yes lol

[@rukidding-y2c]

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.

[@canibezeroun1988]

Nice to push this right after How to Be Christian published the masterpiece.

[@Sharkman1963]

Joe has talked about this very thing before, as I recall listening to that video. Though which specific one I am not sure.

[@Stronghold511]

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.

[@bodolawale5448]

Yes please Gnosticism video

[@edithhewson7208]

We are resurrected body and soul that is a important Jesus body was changed into eternal body

[@wallsign4575]

As Jesus told Thomas: Blessed are those who do not see, yet believe. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:29: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.” Question, why would there be judgement on anyone IF IT’s ONLY A SYMBOL⁉️

[@ConfusedCam]

We need a video on Gnosticism in Protestantism

[@James-ll3jb]

Chriat founded the Catholic Church in Matthew 16. Case closed.😊

[@damnedmadman]

Yes, please do make a video on gnosticism!

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

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."

[@will-bi4pj]

so Christ is then sacrificed again millions of times a day going through the same torture and agony?...NO...the eucharist/mass is the doctrine of DEVILS... paul clearly refutes the eucharist/mass in hebrew 7:27..."Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself." catholics please get it right... one is justified by his/her FAITH in JESUS..the sacrifice is done

[@danielcarriere1958]

The mass is a memorial of the Christ's death. It does not repeat his bloody sacrifice on the cross. But Christ remains forever a priest of Melchizedek who lives forever to intercede for us (see 7:25 in Hebrews). And his sacrifice, the sacrifice of his body and blood remain with him wherever he is. It is eternally valid, and its effects are eternally being applied to all Christians through the mass, which is the offering up of his body and blood in the form of bread and wine.

[@dejuanbattles6062]

let’s do gnostic protestantism🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽

[@powerlessburger]

I as well would like a video on gnosticism

[@KathleenHughes-gm3jx]

Joe, you are not old enough to remember the VAST number of theologians (both Catholic and Protestant) who insisted that the resurrection of Christ was only "a resurrection event in the minds of the apostles." This view made its way to popular culture, witness the ending of the movie "Godspell," in which the apostles carry the dead body of Jesus out into the street and merge into "the community." The return of authentic theology is a something that has happened in the last 25 years.

[@MrsYasha1984]

It is still around, at least in Europe. My theology teacher (catechist class), thinks like this. Granted, the institute where i have to go is oecumenical. But he calls himself catholic. I would guess he is around 50... A lot of people get upset here when you try and talk about christianity in a mystic and real way, instead of pure symbolism.

[@shamelesspopery]

Yes, I'm glad that Spell has been broken!

[@marknovetske4738]

The spirit gives life.... Jesus spoke everything into existence. He's saying that the bread he will give is Spirit and life. The spirit will give you life when you consume his body under the species of the eucharist. He's also saying that it's not his bloody flesh that he's going to cut off himself and feed you with.....it's his flesh transformed by the spirit into the bread on the altar. That's my understanding anyway

[@MegaTechno2000]

“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.

[@wallsign4575]

SUPERNATURAL BREAD 🥖: Do you think 🤔 that when Jesus Christ taught us to pray 🙏🏽 and inserted “give us this day our daily bread 🥖”, He was referring to normal food❓ No! He was referring to the Eucharist‼️ The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains: The usual Greek word for “daily,” hemera, is, after all, used elsewhere in the New Testament, but not in this instance. Why did St. Matthew and St. Luke feel compelled to create a new Greek word to accurately reflect the words of Jesus? They most likely had to use a new word to faithfully translate a novel idea or a unique Aramaic word that Jesus used in His prayer. What was Jesus’ new idea? Although there are multiple levels of meanings to epiousios, Jesus is making a clear allusion to the Eucharist. “Our daily bread” is one translation of a word that goes far above our basic needs for sustenance, and invokes our supernatural needs. St. Jerome translated the Bible in the 4th century from the original Latin, Hebrew and Greek texts to form the Latin Vulgate Bible. When it came to the mysterious word epiousios, St. Jerome hedged his bets. In Luke 11:3, St. Jerome translated epiousios as “daily.” Yet, in Matthew 6:11, he translated epiousios as “supersubstantial.” The root words are: epi, meaning “above” or “super;” and ousia, meaning “being,” “essence,” or “substance.” When they are read together, we come to the possible translations of “super-substantial,” “above-essence,” or, in effect, “supernatural” bread. This translation as supersubstantial is still found today in the Douay-Rheims Bible. Taken literally, our supersubstantial bread is the Eucharist. (CCC 2837). Let’s not forget that the name “Bethlehem” means house of bread 🥖.

[@emoore1439]

Do we really want to say Jesus’ flesh is of no avail

[@chilenobarrucia]

I'm in for an episode on gnosticism 👍

[@BensWorkshop]

Linking the issues with Gnosticism with strains of protestant thought would be good.

[@DDickinson458]

I am interested in the video on Gnosticism