Five Proofs that Christ's True Body and Blood are Present in the Sacrament

These are five proofs of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
This is the book I referenced:
www.amazon.com/Lutheran-Doctr...
Here is a link to further podcasts on the topic:
www.patheos.com/blogs/justands...

[@1517FILMS]

Excellent! Well thought out, well articulated, & faithful to Scripture!!!

[@leeharrison5431]

The lord revealed the truth about this to me . If anyone wants to know the simple truth just ask !

[@r.e.jr.1152]

@@leeharrison5431 You are silly. Read the rest of the passages for clarity.

[@billyr9162]

@@leeharrison5431 Well if God revealed it to you then they should just ask God.

[@leeharrison5431]

@@billyr9162 I agree God will answer your questions! Read the signs ( will work for food ) Genesis 3:17 .. you just have to see what’s right in front of you .. the body of Christ is in you !

[@billyr9162]

@@leeharrison5431 The Bible is not easy. It's written in a 2000 year old language. They use a lot of metaphors and figures of speech that we don't use today. The language is not translate to English very well.

[@axderka]

I’m a Baptist, and Points 3 & 4 were very convincing. Convincing enough for me to need to study this more deeply. I came to the conclusion of the Christ’s presence in the elements when writing a research paper on the historic view of TLS, but I have not been able to move myself fully into your position. Thanks for giving me something to ponder!

[@StevenRudolph]

Cool to hear! I'm from a Baptist background myself and now attend a Lutheran church, so I understand where you're coming from. Jordan Cooper didn't even bring up John 6 in this video, but it was reading that, specifically verses 51-63, that finally sold me on the Lutheran position.

[@LeoRegum]

Re. #3 & #4, Rich Barcellos work "The Lord's Supper as a Means of Grace" exegetes 1 Cor 11 if you are looking for the historic Reformed Baptist view.

[@jb_0029]

Same here

[@robertcampbell1343]

I appreciate this, I am Protestant but also do not believe in the real presence yet. His most convincing argument was about Corinthians. I find though that John 6 is taken out of context, the Chapter should be read carefully from verse 26 on and you may see Jesus words differently.

[@dellmckinley6156]

How’s it going now?

[@tommcconville4270]

As a former Catholic, now an Evangelical, and having had a German Methodist grandfather and English Anglican great grandfather, I will always believe in the true presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Thank you very much for your most informative presentation Dr. Cooper.

[@maxonmendel5757]

what made you transition from catholic to evangelical?

[@tommcconville4270]

@@maxonmendel5757 The Catholic Church, it's hierarchy and it's teachings which have not stayed true to the teachings of the Bible. They've lost their way, but I don't believe that faithful Catholics, who believe and live the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, cannot be saved, because they are saved. And that's in spite of some of the corrupt, immoral priests, bishops and cardinals, and that includes the pope as well.

[@mariocano2767]

​@@tommcconville4270 what teachings according to you has the church not stayed true? There's always been sinners within the church but it doesn't mean that God isn't in charge of leading the church.

[@brendonpremkumar8207]

​@@karlkunze586You literally copied that entire text from another website lol.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@tommcconville4270 If you can still track this thread, I'd be interested to know what teachings led you out of the RCC as well. I would likely be in agreement w/ you, but I find it fascinating to hear people's testimonies. The doctrines of Catholicism are fairly fearfully drilled into people, and I've seen those that considered leaving, but were afraid to. So it takes a great deal of conviction and faith, to realize that one can serve God more faithfully to the bible in other churches.

[@rav66c65]

I am a conservative High Anglican. I think you have done a wonderful job explaining this truth. We are not identical in every theological particular, but we (Lutheran, Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican) all partake of the actual body and blood of Christ. We (High Anglican) call it the Bread or Heaven. The Lord has blessed you as a wonderful teacher.

[@thedon978]

Rav66 C Not really. You have no authentic priesthood. No priest, alter Christus, no Eucharist, other than symbolic.

[@angelbonilla2255]

I think all Christians receive the actual Body and Blood of Christ during communion. They are not aware of it and have not received the best teaching about it.

[@thomask9272]

@@angelbonilla2255 While I still don't have a firm view on this subject, everyday I'm agreeing more and more with statements like yours. I come from a Pentecostal background, and once the person leading Communion in my church said, "Oftentimes, spiritual breakthroughs and miracles happen during Communion." After attending Catholic mass and learning what each part of the Eucharistic preparation and consecration means and represents, I started to realize just how much God's presence is in what I used to think was a simple ceremony.

[@angelbonilla2255]

@@thomask9272 , Thank you. I am also come from a Pentecostal background. The celebrations of the Lord's Supper were a very mystic experiences and there was the expectation that the Lord's Spirit will be moving in a powerful way especially during communion and healings will be more common during communion.

[@waltermromanoff349]

Not true It’s not blood take it to a lab What changes the molecules Magic voodoo

[@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533]

Thank you for these videos. I recently switched from Baptist to Lutheran and your videos have helped me explain my switch to my family. My Baptist mother acknowledged that Jesus is at least spiritually present , much more than just a symbol which is how we were raised. As a 40 year Baptist, I couldn’t make sense of why people got sick and died which led me to believe it was much more than a symbol. But you made it much clearer with the real eating of a real lamb.

[@Solideogloria00]

Praise God! Same here :)

[@IronPyromancer]

Lutheran from a Pentecostal family here, I know the struggle, welcome, and God's peace to you and your family.

[@miguelz8721]

Hallelujah !

[@Mygoalwogel]

Clearest meaning of the Words of Institution 2:20 Passover connection 7:25 St. Paul's choice of words in 1 Cor. 9:59 St. Paul's warning in 1 Cor. 12:49 Unanimity in the early Church 15:52

[@user-uv9fz5rw4z]

The most personal relationship one can have with Jesus Christ is one that is based on being united with Him in Baptism, hanging on His Word, and receiving His very Body and Blood in the Supper. Thank you for an excellent video, Pastor.

[@marcoromero1355]

As a Roman Catholic, I love this video! Great argument, love that you even included the tradition of the early saints and fathers of the church!

[@waltermromanoff349]

So you drink blood That would be cannibalism and the occult

[@mr.lutheranguy4019]

Walter M Romanoff Jesus said, “Take, eat; this is my body,” “Drink of it, all of you; this is my blood of the covenant”. In these words, the One Holy Christian and Apostolic Church throughout all time has, does and always believes and maintains that in the Sacrament one receives the true physical body and the very real physical blood of Jesus Christ.

[@prayunceasingly2029]

@@mr.lutheranguy4019 So are you correct about the Lutheran supper or is youthful sage? Or both. Because you guys seem to be contradicting each other. It's my understanding that Rome teaches the physical body and blood while Lutherans believe in the presence but not that the supper is a literally physical body and blood.

[@mr.lutheranguy4019]

@@prayunceasingly2029 Jesus said, "Take, eat; this is my body; drink from it, all of you; this is my blood of the covenant." Whether one be Roman Catholic or Lutheran, a true Christian will confess that in the Supper Christ gives us His true, physical body and blood to eat and to drink for the assurance of the forgiveness of sins. The difference, then, between the Lutheran understanding of the Sacrament and that of the Roman Catholic view is this: Rome teaches that in the Supper, the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ; whereas the Lutheran view, in accordance with Scripture, teaches that in the Supper, the bread and wine are still there, along with the true, physical body and blood of Jesus Christ. That is to say, the bread and wine are vessels that our LORD chooses to be present physically in. I would encourage you to read Mathew 26 and 1 Corinthians 11 for more info. Hope this helps. God bless.

[@prayunceasingly2029]

@@mr.lutheranguy4019 Yes, thanks for the reply

[@captainfordo1]

I’m currently a Baptist, but your videos are convincing me of Lutheranism. I will continue to study both sides to find the truth

[@critical_mass6453]

Study the bible to find the truth.

[@captainfordo1]

@@critical_mass6453 Like the dozens of denominations who all claim to have the correct interpretation? You can't just read the Bible and expect to land at the right interpretation

[@davidthenewtheologian7757]

@@captainfordo1yes you can god answers prayers. Look at the book Grace abounding to the chief of sinners and see how John Bunyan went to God in prayer on all his questions.

[@mr.lutheranguy4019]

Simple and beautiful. The Sacrament of the Altar is, after Confession and Absolution, my favorite of the 6 chief parts of the Christian Faith.

[@OrthodoxEvans]

Between studying 1 Corinthians 10-11 in a plain reading of the text and in context and many of your explanations I’m pleased to say I’m fully convinced that the Lord’s Supper IS the body and blood of Christ and I’m 100% okay with not knowing exactly how it works!

[@Mygoalwogel]

Praise God! Once in a while I get down in the dumps, thinking Sola Scriptura can't work because it feels like nobody is ever convinced to repent or reform beliefs by the voice of the text itself. Thank you for proving that demon wrong.

[@Hoodinator17]

I am Eastern Orthodox. Found this good.

[@snocookies]

We don't accept valid Sacraments outside the Church... There is no Communion in The Eucharist outside of Holy Orthodoxy. 🙏☦️

[@Hoodinator17]

@@snocookies yes I know that

[@coldfusionmusical]

Hey Ps Cooper, thanks for this video, even though I'm a Catholic, it's nice to know the Lutheran view which is very similar to the Catholic view and I respect your beliefs. I used to be Evangelical Protestant, and many of them will be surprised by what Lutherans believe about the Lord's supper. Very in-depth Bible study and typology, similar to Catholicism as well, it's so fascinating. Anyway, peace and love in Christ. =)

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Sacramental typology is one of my favorite subjects. Thank for watching!

[@Kitiwake]

@@DrJordanBCooper you could have been more complimentary to the writer rather than focus in yourself.

[@kevrides5706]

Pat Aherne true, he really could have. Bit you could have been less critical and more constructive.

[@chop0072]

@@KitiwakeBy saying typology is one of his favorite subjects, he is thanking ColdFusion for having common ground, i dont think he was being selfish.

[@zarnoffa]

@@Kitiwake He was expressing his joy in sharing. Wowza, you must be a party to be around.

[@OrthodoxJourney359]

Thanks to your videos along with other Lutheran Pastors videos I will be attending a good Lutheran Church this coming Sunday Lord willing. May the Lord richly bless you and yours.

[@oddlycreatetiff8920]

I see that you posted this 2 years ago, but you might also enjoy videos from Pastor Bryan Wolfmueller.

[@OrthodoxJourney359]

@@oddlycreatetiff8920 I watched him for a long time but after much research on the continuity of the Christian Church I became Eastern Orthodox.

[@oddlycreatetiff8920]

@OrthoJourney I'm happy you've found what suits you. I try to share Wolfmueller's channel, because it's one which I wish I'd seen a long time ago 🙂

[@OrthodoxJourney359]

@@oddlycreatetiff8920 yeah he is an amazing person and very encouraging.

[@TruLuan]

Brother you should look into Sean Lukes videos and become conservative High Church Anglican. The Orthodox were involved with Massacres and now Wars, they don't represent true Christianity. The Anglo-Catholics have the most consistent position that follow the Scriptures and the teaches of the 7 Oecumenical councis. Icon veneration also isn't coerced. ​@@OrthodoxJourney359

[@crafterman2345]

As a Presbyterian, I agree that we receive Christ's true body and blood in the Lord's Supper. The difference is, we believe that the mode of presence isn't physical because it's not for our physical, but our spiritual nourishment. I think a spiritual presence is in fact more "real" than a physical one, because all throughout the Bible, physical objects are used to point to spiritual realities. However I 100% agree with you that so many Reformed teachers have been extremely vague about how Christ is present in the supper and often sound like "oh it's just a symbol"

[@ClassicalProtestant]

I genuinely enjoyed your comment. I am former 1689er who served at a PCA church as a pastor lol long discussion there but in some regard we’d mostly agree there is a physical efficacy as well…”some of you feel weak, ill, and died - a spiritual strengthening I believe does provide a real vitality - in impacts mood and attitude and our thought process and engagements. So our soul is mind and body and spirit - a reductionist argument perhaps but in short there is a physical aspect in regard to efficacy if nothing else in a negative sense.

[@KawaiiMiri]

I trust the Lord, I have His Holy Spirit in me after I was baptized but I never understood it this way. By faith the Lord is there, the wine is His blood and the bread is His body. I have to go to church more, I need these.

[@Kringlelicious]

Thank you! It's beautiful having all the scriptural context/proofs in one presentation!

[@alfredolebron1428]

Unfortunately, during high school my history classes always said that Lutherans only believed in a spiritual or even symbolic presence, merely because of the rejection of transubstantiation. Nuance is lost here, and an impression is given that no protestant believed in the Real Presence.

[@louisaccardi6808]

A favorite verse of mine on the Lord's Supper is I Cor. 10: 16 "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" The Greek, koinonia for the word translated as communion can mean participation. So yes, the Lord's Supper is a participation in the actual life of Christ for us.

[@stevereason6931]

Dr. Cooper, thank you for sharing this much debated topic that many within Christendom still struggle with as all Christians seek the truth. When I clicked on this video I wondered if you were going to address the Leviticus 17 passage, but...I have not come across anyone yet that has refuted the strongest case against the bread and wine being a metaphor for Christ's body and blood due to Leviticus 17:10-12 which states "If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off form among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood." Eating blood was a violation of the law. I believe this is why many of the disciples struggled with Jesus' words in John 6:52-60 and many walked away. Jesus could not sin, nor would he lead his disciples to sin against the law. If Jesus violated the law he could not be the unblemished lamb of God. A few other cases against transubstantiation is taken from Acts 15 at the Jerusalem Council where the Apostles debated if gentile Christians must be circumcised in order to be saved. The Apostles concluded the gentiles were not required to try and keep the law since the Jews could not keep it themselves, so the gentiles were only required to abstain from four things, which are not eating meat sacrificed to idols, abstain from sexual immorality, from what had be strangled, and blood. Now if blood is one of the four things the gentiles were to abstain from, surely the Apostles would have clarified to the gentiles that drinking the Lord's blood was an exception. Then there is the case of the Passover itself. When the Passover is originally established in Exodus 12, the Hebrew people were instructed in verses 24-27 "You shall observe this rite as a statute for you and for your sons forever. And when you come to the land that the Lord will give you, as he has promised, you shall keep this service. And when your children say to you, 'What do you mean by this service?' you shall say, It is the sacrifice of the Lord's Passover, for he passed over the houses of the people of Israel in Eygpt, when he struck the Eygptians but spared our houses.'" The blood of the unblemished lamb at the original Passover was a foreshadow of the blood of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross to cover the believer's sins once and for all. So the Passover that Jesus and the disciples were partaking in was itself an annual remembrance celebration. In addition, Jesus said "I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." Jesus emphasis is the fruit of the vine, not his blood. Another case is the Corinthian Church being chastised by Apostle Paul. The Corinthians were actually getting drunk while remembering the Lord's Supper. This tells me it was alcohol, wine, not the blood of Jesus. Those who believe they are partaking in the literal body and blood of Christ I believe are sincere. The Lord knows each person's conscience when they partake. It's my heart's belief ALL followers of Christ seek and desire truth and we are to build up and encourage one another in the faith. We need to extend grace to followers of Christ who are sincere in their faith but do not understand exactly like we may understand as we all still maturing in our faith. I just started listening to you a couple days ago and appreciate so much what you share with the body of Christ that I subscribed to your KZbin channel. Having much respect for your knowledge and understanding of Scripture and Church history I am curious how you would address the issues brought forth above. Blessings to you in Christ Jesus!

[@lc-mschristian5717]

Awesome! Thank you. I'm sharing this with some of my Protestant.stant friends and family. God's peace be with you.

[@iam1hobbit]

Thanks for this video! Friendly, clear, and non-combative (this can be quite the touchy subject!). God bless your continued ministry!

[@sled_dog]

Coming from a Baptist background this was always something I wondered about. You make it so obvious its the true body and blood of Christ. Thank you.

[@walterromanoff2953]

So you drink blood Does that make you holy Is the blood free of infection What if you spill the blood What if you don’t eat the body and take it home If a priest is raping children at night can he still serve the body and blood to everyone What if you receive the wine and bread and don’t believe What if you spit it out Maybe when Jesus said do this to remember me that’s what he meant

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

@@walterromanoff2953 If we receive Communion reverently while in the state of grace Communion will, over time, make us holy. Catholics believe in spiritual GROWTH, not salvation in a hallelujah instant. The Precious Blood of Christ could carry germs. Jesus came to heal sin not to kill germs. The laity drinking from the Communion chalice has been temporarily suspended because of the coronavirus pandemic. A believer who receives the Communion Wafer only does receive both the Body and Blood of Christ because the Eucharist is the LIVING Body of Christ, and a living body has blood in it

[@kyuhotae6410]

@@GeorgePenton-np9rhIt is the blood and body of Christ as part of the Eucharist when accompanied by the sword of God!

[@lindajohnson4204]

The Lord is present in the bread and wine, the same way He is present whenever two or three are gathered together in His name: by faith and through the Holy Spirit. That IS a _real presence,_ because the Holy Spirit is real, and because our faith in Jesus's death, burial and resurrection is real, given to us by His grace toward us. This is NOT denying that Jesus has come in the flesh. Far from it: it is looking back to His time on earth, and forward to His return. And blessed is him who has not seen, yet believeth.

[@PETERJOHN101]

A physical door is a symbolic reference to an everlasting door, which shows how we confuse symbology with reality.

[@Mygoalwogel]

He is the literal everlasting door. Whoever enters through him will be saved.

[@danielrenfrow4325]

Genuine Question: So why doesn’t it taste like body or blood?

[@darcie7773]

Thank you 😂

[@ImAlwaysHere1]

Because it’s not. This video should be titled “5 proofs that the Bible intends for this to be taken literally “. There is no proof here that it is actually so. People no longer know what “proof” is, and a professor should know better.

[@hawkeyelifeguy]

This is fantastic work Dr. Cooper, Bravo.

[@bolagg6676]

I am really trying to understand this. If we are really eating the body and drink the blood of Christ, is there a transformation that occurs to the bread and the wine or do we take it in faith even if we do not perceive of any physical changes to what we are consuming? This might come off as totally naive question but I am sincerely trying to understand. Thank you.

[@chikiloka6670]

Maybe Transubstanciation? is when like you said you dont see it physically becoming the body and blood of Christ but your faith says Why couldn’t God make it possible? If he is all powerfull he can make himsef present in that piece of bread, he is omnipresent- meaning he can be present in different places at the same time.

[@sauerkrautjr]

Not a naive question. The RC church says a transformation occurs, EO (and Lutherans) essentially take it in faith and don't try to explain too much.

[@ann-marieb2593]

This might be the best concise explanation I've seen, thank you!

[@waltermromanoff349]

You are brainwashed The wine is not blood The wafer is still a wafer You are in a pagan cult This guy is as boring as a priest

[@MrsSmith-js5tt]

@@waltermromanoff349 Looks like you have some issues!

[@lorenzomurrone2430]

@@MrsSmith-js5tt Don't feed the troll

[@BecomeAnOrthodoxChristian]

This is refreshing to hear from a protestant!

[@patrickrooney4601]

Indeed.

[@davegreene1198]

Lutherans are reformers, not protestants! We're the historical church without the greed, corruption and pedo.

[@BecomeAnOrthodoxChristian]

@@davegreene1198 Hello Danceswithladders Shortly, please become an Eastern Orthodox Christian.

[@Dilley_G45]

Refreshing? This is what Lutheran Church has taught since the beginning because it's true

[@colepriceguitar1153]

Be careful about trusting the early church writers. We can see in Ephesians and Corinthians how wrong they had been even though Paul taught them in person.

[@erikrose7041]

Ephesians? You mean Galatians?

[@thomasparish8700]

Thanks so much. I just ordered the book

[@thomask9272]

Hey, Dr. Cooper! Your video was interesting, and challenged me. Quick question: Do Lutherans practice Eucharistic adoration, since they believe in Christ's presence?

[@patrickw.randolph7824]

Hey Thomas, Lutheran here (different organization than Dr. Cooper, but same theology). Most Lutherans do not practice Eucharistic adoration, because they recognize that Christ commanded nothing more or less than to eat and drink the elements. Lutherans consider that, on the basis of Scripture, to do anything else but 1) proclaim the Eucharist by Christ's Word and 2) Eat and drink with faith------ is to do harm to the administration to the Sacrament. Some Lutherans do, but for different reasons than Roman Catholic practices. Faith is created by the Word of point 1, faith receives the gift of Christ by point 2. Anything else seems counterproductive.

[@patrickw.randolph7824]

Also, since this was on my mind, I found the citation in the one of the Lutheran Confessional documents. Look at bookofconcord.org. It's a great place to learn more about what Lutherans believe as opposed to Roman Catholics, Calvinists, Zwinglians, Anabaptists, and the sects that reject Christ. bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#part7.40

[@jacobfoster7726]

Great question! “We say that one should not condemn people or accuse them of heresy if they do not adore the Sacrament, for there is no command to that effect and it is not for that purpose that Christ is present. Just as we read that the apostles did not adore the Sacrament since they were sitting and eating at the table. On the other hand, one should not condemn and accuse of heresy people who do adore the Sacrament. For although Christ has not commanded it, neither has he forbidden it, but often accepted it [that is, he accepted it when people bowed to him]. Free, free it must be, according as one is disposed in his heart and has opportunity” (Luther’s Works 36, p. 295). wels.net/faq/eucharistic-adoration/

[@waltermromanoff349]

Why don’t you just worship Jesus he died for your sins He was speaking spiritually about the Eucharist

[@charleshappold4637]

Lutherans adore the Body/ Host and Blood/ Chalice by bowing, crossing ourselves, kneeling before the altar during holy communion. Many of our churches elevate the host and cup, bells may be rung and even incense is used in reverence to the Real Presence of Christ. It is the most sacred part of the liturgy. We do not in any way deserve such a Gift of forgiveness and sanctification. Some Lutheran churches have tabernacles or ambries near the altar where the consecrated elements are kept. Often the reserved sacrament is placed in the sacristy. We don't have Corpus Christi processions, per se but do move the consecrated host in procession during the Holy Thursday liturgy.

[@billmartin3561]

Great video! Luther never wanted to split the church, he wanted reforms against abuses, which happened at the Council of Trent. I think it’s time for our Lutheran brothers to rejoin the Catholic Church and the fullness of the Christian faith!

[@goofygrandlouis6296]

WIth the current Pope, I'm not sure the "abuses" have gone away..

[@vincentcoppola9832]

Actually, the abuses Luther rejected took place long before the council of Trent.

[@ruthgoebel723]

Maybe, but I cannot pray to Mary or the saints. No biblical basis for this. The teaching of purgatory also has no biblical basis. Until those things are removed (I don't really see that happening), I will still remain Lutheran.

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

O Sacrament most holy O Sacrament divine All praise and all thanksgiving Be every moment thine.

[@34Packardphaeton]

.. Should you not worship God... instead of mere bread.. a mere symbol ? ?

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

@@34Packardphaeton The Communion Host is not really bread. When the priest consecrates it at Mass, the substance of the bread becomes the actual living Body of Jesus Christ----likewise the wine becomes His Blood. The appearances of bread and wine remain but the SUBSTANCE changes. Since we can't see It we have to believe It on faith, which makes It all the more good and valuable. Jesus is God. Therefore the Holy Eucharist is God and is worshipped as God. If the Eucharist were not really Jesus' Body and Blood then yes the Eucharist would be an idol, and Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (their belief is the same as ours on this) would be the biggest idolators in the history of the world.

[@34Packardphaeton]

Yes, Jesus is God. However, the eucharist is NOT God. That claim is unsupported by Scripture, our final authority. I will not pass any judgment upon whether idolatry takes place in the contexts of the denominations you cite, but neither will I dismiss it from possibility. God alone is judge. Fair?

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

@@34Packardphaeton Jesus is God. The Holy Eucharist is Jesus (John 6:48-69). So therefore the Holy Eucharist is God. Down on our knees we go before It (yes, I capitalized "It" on purpose). According to the Council of Trent "full latria worship shall be given the Most Holy Eucharist". If the Eucharist is not the literal Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Catholics are the biggest idolators in the history of the world. If that is not literally and really Jesus I received last Sunday I am an idolator.

[@34Packardphaeton]

George, on the evening of the Last Supper, Jesus was NOT speaking literally about His body & blood. There is NO Biblical evidence or confirmation that the bread becomes His body, nor the blood "of the covenant" becomes His blood. I believe that the eucharist being worshiped is in significant error and without Biblical commandment or confirmation, but I will not pass judgment on whether such might be idolatry... yet I will not deny that possibility, either. God will judge --- not me. Peace to you.

[@jackcallahan1848]

Yoooo. I’m Catholic. I didn’t realize Lutherans believed that the bread and wine were the actual body and blood. That’s cool

[@kyuhotae6410]

There is a slight difference between the way Catholics believe and Lutherans. Catholics try to “explain” it away by way of “transubstantiation,” which means, they say, the wine and bread change “into” the blood and body of a Christ, post-consumption. Some churches believe in con substantiation, which is sort of similar to the “Real Presence of the Body and Blood,” but similar means “not the same,” we must understand. The Real Presence is simply that when accompanied by the Word of God, we get to participate in Christ’s real presence! While some reject that as being somehow cannibalistic, it is not some mere symbolism or a “simile,” but simply the actual real presence of Christ and a “sacrament,” i.e., a “means of grace!”

[@stratmatt22]

​@@kyuhotae6410u r wrong

[@kyuhotae6410]

@@stratmatt22 Pray tell, do you really know about Christianity?

[@rr7firefly]

What are the statistics regarding acceptance of this idea? I keep seeing statements by non-Catholic scholars that a large percentage of American Catholics (over 65%) do not believe in transubstantiation. If this is so, what do they believe? Do they believe it to be merely symbolic? Hence the question: if a person receives the Sacrament but does so with doubts, does that person still receive the spiritual benefit?

[@fairwhether1]

This is a hard thing to understand. I'm having a hard time anyway, even putting my thoughts into a question! Jesus was there physically in his body, and held up a piece of bread and said: "this is my body". Was the bread he held up also his body, or just a symbol at that time? Or is it only after His death and resurrection that the body and blood are present in the bread and wine?

[@abrahamalexander4369]

When he said this is my body it transformed.

[@arold4928]

Abraham Alexander so was it his sacrificed body or the body before. Is it his body after he is risen how could u know

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

@@arold4928 I am a Catholic and I fervently believe in the Holy Eucharist but I have often wondered about that myself. I do know the Church teaches that Jesus did literally change the bread and wine at the Last Supper, and that the Last Supper was the first Mass, and that the Eucharist is offered up to the Father as a sacrifice and Jesus did do that at the Last Supper, but I'm not sure if He was offering up His glorified Body or not. At Masses now the priest offers up the glorified Body of Christ, I do know that. The Mass was meant to take the place of Passover. Passover was meant to be a prefigure of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Jesus is the New Adam, Mary is the New Eve, the Catholic Church is the New Israel, and the Mass is the New Passover. I strongly recommend all to view Scott Hahn's video entitled "The Fourth Cup".

[@Beluga747]

What a great question! This is a hard thing to understand! Jesus's own students had the same struggle (John 6:60). May I offer some thoughts? When Jesus held up that bread he said "this is my body." We test the assumption that he's speaking literally by lining up some points and see if they agree with that assumption. 1) Jesus is God 2) When God speaks, his words do the thing he says (like in Genesis 1), 3) Jesus has a history of manipulating matter (like in John 2), 4) Jesus has appeared in bodily form before he was born of Mary (Genesis 18 + Exodus 33:20 + John 8) 5) Jesus the lamb in some sense was slain before the world was formed (Revelation 13:8) 6) Jesus created space/time/matter (Colossians 1), so he's not constrained by the laws of space/time/matter that he defined. So, that's how he did things like eat with Abraham before he was born. 7) If I say "God did something before x," that's a guess! I don't know how God sees it. Can Jesus be in more than one place at once before his resurrection? I don't know, but I'm not willing to argue "no" based on the above points. When we are in paradise, we can ask him if we still remember the question :) God bless

[@kilemyers784]

His body was broken in the crucifixion, crushed, beaten, humiliated so when He broke the bread it was like His body being broken. This is what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11, and the wine being poured into the cup it is like His blood being poured out.

[@koonhanong2267]

Hi Dr Cooper, I have 2 Questions: 1) Regarding 1Cor10, Paul was rebuking them for eating at gatherings with food sacrificed to idols. Can you comment on whether this participation is symbolic? If so, is the Lord's Supper then fundamentally different from food offered to idols? 2) How would you read John 6 in light of your more "realist" view of the Lord's Supper?

[@Mygoalwogel]

Temple worshippers in Taiwan believe that the food and money sacrificed to the dead (luminous or suffering) literally does them good in the afterlife, and that they will repay the sacrifice materially. So it's sheer hypocrisy to literally feed and eat with the ghosts and also to literally eat and drink the body and blood given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. It's hypocritical to desire the benefits of both the holy meal and the demonic meal at the same time. Now if the Lord's Supper is just a memorial meal, then Taiwanese temple meals have a literal effect, while Church communion is inconsequential beyond memories and feelings. I think that's why all my Taiwanese NON-Lutheran Christian friends and their pastors still treat the words "This is my body/blood" in a straight-forward way, without trying to explain it. No way are they gonna give temple meals more power than the Lord's Supper!

[@dellmckinley6156]

Thank you so much for this video, it was very helpful in bringing me to the truth.

[@louispatterson9859]

Can you elaborate on the parallel you make with the animal sacrifices? You mention the literal eating of the animals and follow that with a symbolic interpretation of the fire consuming the animals. We can also understand the animals as shallow symbols of the coming full sacrifice of Christ. I am confused as to why you point to sacrifices with both literal and symbolic significance (literally eating the animal and the fire symbolically consuming the animal) as an affirmation that there is literal body in the bread.

[@Mygoalwogel]

As he said, the burning *in Leviticus* is symbolic. God symbolically partook of His (choicest) portion of the sacrifice meal. God makes it clear in the prophets that he isn't literally hungry for leg of lamb. But when the Son is sacrificed, the Father literally partakes of the sacrifice (Heb 13;11-12) and is satisfied forever (Heb 10:12). The Lord's Supper is your portion of the sacrifice. Your faith can weaken because of performance anxiety and sin. "This is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins." This promise depends on God speaking the truth, not on you demonstrating to yourself that your own faithfulness is spectacular enough. So Christ's broken flesh and spilled blood is literally more substantial and satisfying than a lambchop.

[@MissingTrails]

If I wasn't convinced before, I am now.

[@ZealousSeraphim]

As somebody who’s leaving Reformed Theology for Lutheran, I always secretly had a belief that Real Pressence was probably true. But since there were no Calvinistic Churches that held to it, I rejected it meanwhile not being convinced at all of the Westminster understanding of the Supper. Hearing these arguments is really proving my intuition to have been true on this. I’m glad I’m embracing a theology that holds to this. Especially considering how unanimous the Church Fathers were on this doctrine.

[@oracleoftroy]

I'm confused by why you seem to think that Westminster denies the real presence in the Lord's Supper. Your comment would make a lot more sense to me if you said you had a Baptist background. Westminster follows Calvin in rejecting the Zwinglist view. Westminster Confession chapter 29.7: "Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, *really and indeed,* yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, *receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified,* and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as *really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance,* as the elements themselves are to their outward senses." Real presence is affirmed plain as day. We "really and indeed ... receive and feed upon Christ crucified". Christ is "really, but spiritually, present" in the Lord's supper. The primary difference I see between Lutherans and Reformed is that the Reformed say the it is a real spiritual presence and Lutheran's say there is a real physical presence, except not in any measurable or detectable physical way (the wine is still physically wine not blood, the bread is physically bread not flesh), and also not in a transubstantiationary way like the Romanists believe. Exactly how it works is left to mystery.

[@oracleoftroy]

@taun Huh?

[@ruben-Juarez]

Christ said to do this in remembrance of Him!!!!

[@Southron-CiK]

Then what does 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 mean?

[@josuepizarro5721]

John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

[@TheB1nary]

So here we could say that "eating" and "believing" are synonymous? By believing, we are being "fed with the bread from heaven," and will not hunger?

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

The true Christian eats. And he believes what he eats is literally Jesus's Body and Blood.

[@donaldcooley897]

@@GeorgePenton-np9rh No a true saved believer does not believe he is eating the flesh of Christ it is a deception of the devil and there is no salvation in the eucharist it is not scriptural or is there forgiveness of sin

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

@@donaldcooley897 You need to read John 6:48-69, Donald.

[@donaldcooley897]

@@GeorgePenton-np9rh . Unlike the biblical illiterate Catholics I have read the 6th Chapter of John dozens of times and studied it . Christ who ministry here on earth was to get his people to except him as the savior promised by God . All of his miracle including John 2 ; was to get people to believe on him verse 11 says his disciples believed . He was the bread from heaven and who believed on him were saved and given everlasting Life John 5 : 24 John 3 : 16 ; John 6 : 40 ; John 6 : 47 ; Jesus did not mean that you eat his body literally . verse 35 Jesus said that I am the bread of Life . he that comes to me will never hunger or and he who believes on me will never thirst . He is talking a bout spiritual life , if it they were eating literally flesh they would hunger again every thing he says in John 6 is spiritual . In John 4 The woman at the well . Christ told her that that who drinks of the water that I give him shall never thirst and will spring up into everlasting life . so you catholics think he is the water . the water becomes the spirit of Life Christ is life . It is a spiritual life the whole 6 Chapter is talking about spiritual life , eternal life . John 6 : 63 . its the spirit that quickens and gives eternal life Eph. 2 : 4 - 5 ; 8 - 9 That why the unbelieving disciples turn back and follow him no more . they were thinking with their cardinal mind just like some Catholic the can`t see the spiritual truth of Gods word

[@molodoychilovek1949]

How do Lutherans treat or regard the leftovers from the supper?

[@marknewman7962]

Hello Dr, well done. Now , in John 17 vs 21, 23, John describes a state of perfection, one with them both. The provision externally is this, the body and blood of our given and broken Lord that ours be well and whole. God is wiser. Give each one of us and external harmony reflective of that internally, meaning spiritually.

[@rose_brier]

Thank you so much for explaining this! I grew up baptist and calvinist. I've always thought there was more to the eucharist than just being a symbol. You did a wonderful job explaining this and now I'm almost convinced! I'm going to do a little more research before I decide my position on this matter. But, I'm becoming a lot more convinced! May God bless you and your ministry! Now I do have a question, I am planning on visiting a lutheran church in my area soon, would I be allowed to partake in the eucharist or would I need to become Lutheran to do so.

[@Mygoalwogel]

You would need to be catechized so that the pastor could confidently give you the Sacrament without causing you to eat judgement against your and his consciences.

[@rose_brier]

@@Mygoalwogel Thank you for answering this! About how long does that process usually take? I'm not impatient, it's just soon I'll be heading off to college so if it takes a long time I won't be able to complete at that church.

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@rose_brier Different pastors do it differently because it's not a sacrament for Lutherans but good and ancient tradition of pastoral care. One extreme is to memorize the 6 chief parts. The other extreme is to have a few discussions. I'm sorry I can't be more specific. One pastor started my son's catechesis and another finished it because we moved residence, so apparently you don't need to do it all at once.

[@Dilley_G45]

Just make sure the Lutheran churchnyou visit is NOT connected to ELCA. Rather Make sure it is AALC (like Dr. COOPER and Chris Roseborough), LCMS (like Bryan Wolfmueller or Will Weedon), or WELS or Eldona or ELS.

[@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790]

I'm a chilean pentecostal (wesleyan) and I believe it's the true blood and the true body, but I don't believe in Transubstantiation

[@markhenderson5674]

Genuine question: If you believe you are partaking in the actual body and blood, how is that not transubstantiation?

[@Rikard_A]

Thank you.

[@mynameis......23]

19:10 how did irenaeus knew Ignatius when Ignatius dies at 108 ad and irenaeus was born in 130 ad?

[@CJ2345ish]

He meant Polycarp. Polycarp is another apostolic father who knew the Apostle John.

[@lms2379]

Still learning about this….if not understood to be literal by the disciples, don’t know why it was a “hard saying” for them.

[@sauerkrautjr]

Great point.

[@MFaith777]

Because they didn’t understand what he meant just like they didn’t understand what he meant by the temple being torn down and raised again in three days.

[@christianstephens7213]

Im a Penecostal and I believe in the literal body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

[@asjourney3213]

Reformed Baptist here as a result of FLAME's journey. I love some of the newfound freedoms he's experiencing. I am curious about the perspective but not convinced.

[@prayunceasingly2029]

How could Jesus say that the wine "is" (in present tense) his blood when he had not yet died? Why didn't he say this "will be" his blood, because the atonement hadn't yet been fulfilled? That seems odd.

[@mattallred]

and he said "do this in remembrance of me" he didn't say, when you do this I will be with you, or when you do this we will be together, or anything like that. He took the two most simple things, bread and wine, and said this is my body, this is my blood, take it in remembrance of me. It can't be done in remembrance if through that he is actually there in the action.

[@ericrachut4207]

At one time one reason the Reformed refused to believe in the Real Presence was - in the 16th century - a living portion of someone's body could not exist physically separated from his body. This was before the era of hospital blood banks (the units of blood therein are living, you know). Of course, with God all things are possible.

[@prayunceasingly2029]

@@ericrachut4207 Yes, it's possible!

[@PaulV-nm2et]

@@ericrachut4207 wrong ……… God can not go against His nature and Jesus has 2 natures which He can't go against. the "Real Presence" is a doctrine of demons --- you are denying Jesus is "fully man"

[@abrahamalexander4369]

Who gave you the doctrine of fully man fully god? Oh yeah a bunch of eucharistics. Youre a clown

[@TedBruckner]

good work. Anyone see the Darth Vader/Dark Father coffee mug?

[@johnboyx63]

Excellent work Rev. Cooper! Have you made a video or podcast or written about the interpretations of John 6? Do you know of any good resources on the subject?

[@mysticmouse7261]

Exhaustive and conclusive in the first 4 points. Excellent!

[@Vintage_Recreations]

I am surprised you left out John 6 which I believe is one of the strongest arguments for the Real Presence. I know Luther rejected that idea but I think the plain reading of Scripture, especially many of the 5000 and Judas' reaction to Jesus' notice about the coming Supper is very telling.

[@DavidSmith-sb2ix]

Unfortunately many Lutherans don't understand this. I am the organist in a Luthrran Church and they usually use bread instead of wafers. After the service you could see crumbs of consecrated bread on the floor and the small cups with consecrated wine residue were thrown in the trash. When I mentioned it to the former pastor she laughed and said "I guess we're walking on Jesus." As a very conservative Highchurch Anglican I won't take communion there.

[@johnmarquardt1991]

She? lol

[@ericrachut4207]

The behavior by this "pastorette" is not Lutheran. It comes from what has been termed receptionism - the idea that the Body and Blood are only present in the act of consumption (consumption of the elements at or shortly after the Words of Institution IS an essential part of the sacrament - it was instituted that way and not to have the consecrated elements simply kept for worship, which is why Lutherans have never historically participated in Corpus Christi processions). However, the Body and Blood ARE present after the Words of Institution, regardless of whether they are consumed. The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, a small pietistic group, maintains receptionism (but no woman pastors - yours must have been ELCA, in which anything goes, including communing nonLutherans like you). The story is told of Luther that, when consecrated wine/blood was spilled, his first reaction - after distress - was to kneel and lap it up.

[@hexahexametermeter]

"This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already." -Augustine on John Chapter 6

[@casaresidencial186]

What's the difference between the view presented on the video and the concept of transubstantiation? I thought it was the same thing

[@joshron99]

At 05:20-- what you refer to as a direct object is rather a predicate nominative.

[@joshuaorourke1976]

Very nice catch.

[@thuscomeguerriero]

Question for proponents of this faith in the real presence: Scripture tells us the Holy Spirit indwells the believer. Proponents of the real presence will tell you that the merits of Calvary are transferred in the Eucharist. What then is LACKING in the Real Presence of the Holy Spirit! that one must make this daily end-around to insure the presence of Christ in the believer? Seems redundant and contradictory. If the Holy Spirit is in us..Christ is in us..so it seems to me..bless

[@rabbidrabb5227]

whats missing is meat and actual blood with red and white blood cells and DNA

[@Mygoalwogel]

This paper does a good job. You can read it online by scrolling down or download the pdf to your phone. www.academia.edu/185285/Why_Luther_is_not_Quite_Protestant_The_Logic_of_Faith_in_a_Sacramental_Promise

[@oracleoftroy]

This is resolvable with some Trinitarianism 101. The Father is God. Jesus the son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. Jesus is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the Father or Jesus. Christ is really present in communion, not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is indwelling believers, not Christ. No contradiction. The different persons of the Godhead meet us in different ways, so pointing out how one person of the Godhead meets us can't contradict how another person of the Godhead meets us.

[@lisalmenard3828]

Hi! Enjoying your videos. Does the “real” body and blood of Jesus have to mean real as in physical human flesh and physical human blood? I can easily accept that a special grace and presence of Jesus (by the Spirit) is present in the elements, that even impart good spiritual things to us, but the first thing I asked about concerns me. This is a sincere comment. I would appreciate some helpful feedback. Thanks!

[@SlovakLutheranMonarchist]

Lutheran theology says this: That Real Presence of Christ in Eucharist means that body and blood of christ are in bread and wine. Both spiritural and physical. Well, we do not hold to as Roman-Catholics. Romanists hold to this as transsubstantiation, we do not. Transsubstantiation means that substance of bread and wine has changed, or that bread in no more bread but body, but just it physically seems to as as bread. That is heresy. That is derived from Plato and Socrates etc. If you want more check what pastor Bryan Wolfmueller say on this topic. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nHrMoqKtqL17o8k

[@KamalaKackles]

At what point does it become the True Body and Blood? What about the bread and wine that is not used?

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

According to the Catholic Church the bread becomes the Body of Christ when the priest quotes Christ and says "this is my body" and the wine becomes the Blood of Christ when the priest says "this is my blood". The Eastern Orthodox say that the bread and wine change when the priest says to God in prayer as part of their ritual "We ask that You make them holy". I'm not sure what the Anglicans and Lutherans say about this.

[@RecoveringLiberal1984]

Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

[@34Packardphaeton]

Cheryl, please read verses 28 & 29 from John, Ch. 6. .. His disciples asked Him what they must DO to work the works of God. Jesus replied, that to do the works of God, one must BELIEVE in Him whom He has sent. Therefore, our redemption from sin is NOT anything we do, or can do ---- it is by faith, by believing in Christ and His singular work on our behalf.

[@johnemmerich7075]

@@34Packardphaeton this has nothing to do with transubstantiation that so I assume you agree it is the real presence

[@34Packardphaeton]

John, I'm not sure of the context of your use of the word, "this". But, for the record, No, I do not believe in 'the real presence'. There is, at the very least, insufficient Biblical support for that concept. Jesus said, "Do this in memory of me." Jesus never said anything about being present at a communion celebration. Redemption and saving faith comes only through the Holy Spirit.. to a believer . . . . Neither comes through or via any given church... or "sacrament".

[@abrahamalexander4369]

@@34Packardphaeton all 4 gospels and paul talk about the eucharist. Administered by the Lord himself and commanding them to do it. And yes paul told them do it at churches. The lord rebuke you Satan

[@34Packardphaeton]

@@abrahamalexander4369 .. No, only three of the four Gospels mention the breaking of bread and sharing the cup: John's Gospel does not. Read John, Ch. 13.

[@kathryn.wooldridge]

Thank you for your videos. You make a lot of sense. It's sometimes hard to navigate my way around the difficult theological debates going on between theologians and scholars, especially as a simple Christian who is trying her best to follow Jesus. I want to go to church and receive communion believing that for me it becomes the body and blood of the Lord, but all the debates about when and how and valid ordinances of the priests etc. make it confusing, especially when each insists that they are right. I suppose that the difference of opinion in my own anglican communion doesn't help.

[@34Packardphaeton]

Kathryn, read John, Ch. 6, v. 28 & 29. ... Our redemption, our being granted His righteousness apart from the Law.. is granted by faith ---- It is not what we do, or can do. It is all the work of God, via Jesus sacrifice of Himself once on His cross. Jesus said that to "work the works of God, we must BELIEVE in Him who He has sent." Romans 10:17, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God."

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@34Packardphaeton And the word of God that we hear is "This is my body."

[@donaldcooley897]

@@Mygoalwogel Wrong The word of God is that you believe on the lord Jesus Christ for everlasting life .

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@donaldcooley897 Christ says, "This is my body." Donald Cooley says, "Wrong." Donald Cooley literally does not, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ."

[@donaldcooley897]

@@Mygoalwogel You don`t know me , to say I do not believe on The Lord Jesus Christ is like saying you are not saved by the grace of God through faith in Christ . and beside this is coming from a biblical illiterate catholic. I was saved at the age 16 74 years ago in my 20 I was called to be an Evangelist , after school I was ordained and preached and taught on Radio and in Churches mostly in the south . I was saved in a revival where the Gospel of Christ was preached and it convicted me that I was a sinner I repented and God through the spirit drew me to Christ for salvation . By faith in him and his blood atonement I was saved and by my faith in him I was justified Romans 5 : 1 and by faith I was made righteous Romans 4 : 5- 6 ; Show me in the scriptures where Christ is brought down from the throne and is physically present in a the Pagan ritual the catholic mass and the eucharist , If Christ is there , he is there in spirit in the bodies of some one that is saved , if there is any . When saved believers have the Lord`s supper or Communion as in 1 Cor. 11 : 23 - 26 ; Christ took ( BREAD ) and broke it say take and eat this is my body which is broken for you in remembrance of me . and he took the cup and of wine which is the blood of the New Testament in my Blood for remembrance and gave them to drink . it is to remember his death till he comes back.1 Cor.11 : 26 ; The bread and wine a symbol of his body and blood . It was against God`s law to drink blood and eat flesh . and only a biblical ignorant person would believe that Christ broke his body apart and save the blood and gave them to Eat and drink . it never happen , Catholic take John 6 ; to back up the pagan ritual of the eucharist . John 6 : 50 - 58 ; which Christ was teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. trying to get his unbelieving disciples to believe on him as the son of God that come down from heaven to give life to the world . Christ was speaking in spiritual terms and the cardinal minded disciples could not understand spiritual things and though he was saying literally that they had to eat his body and drink his blood to have life , Christ was talking about eternal life which he gave to them by believing on him .5 : 24 John 6 : 40 ; John 6 : 47 ; and in there cardinal minds thought that he was saying literally that they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood so they stop follow him . salvation is spiritual and to get saved means you have to believe on Christ by faith , What Christ was saying here was spiritual John 6 : 63 ; it takes the spirit to regenerate or make alive a person who is dead in sins . Prove me wrong by the scriptures .

[@axolotl5327]

I've tried to figure out what it means to say the body and blood are "present", but I've struck out. Would you expand on this?

[@danielfinn9460]

The word "present" is already an expansion of the word "is." I wouldn't recommend expanding it further. Unless you can think of any place in Scripture where it's used, I would suggest dropping it. Of the bread, Christ says "This is My body." The faithful reply is "Okay. The bread is His body. Got it." Of the cup, Christ says "This cup is the New Testament in My blood, which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins." Faith replies "Wow! The whole new covenant is here in this cup. ...and it's Jesus' blood, shed for the forgiveness of sins? Thanks, Jesus!" The word "present" is confusing. Jesus simply teaches us what to believe. He doesn't explain everything. He didn't say "Take and eat, this is the substantial presence -- and I'm speaking in a spiritual, metaphysical sense, which you can't totally understand, but I'm telling you what you should believe -- of my body, which is present in, with and under the bread. And, to be clear, I'm not saying that the bread is changed into My body, or that it represents My body. But rather I'm saying 'it *is* My body. Does everybody understand? Thomas, you look like you have a question. Let's hear all viewpoints so that we can achieve consensus in our understanding of the bread, so that I can then move on to My explanation of the cup." That's the way psychologists and moral philosophers talk, but it's not how the Lord talks. He teaches. Believers believe. For example, in John 6:63, Jesus responded to the doubters by saying "The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life." They didn't believe Him, and so they ceased following Him. In verse 67, He asked His disciples, "Do you also want to go away?" Peter's reply is, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." Notice that Peter is faithfully repeating what Jesus had said a moment before (in vs. 63). I don't think that Peter had any greater understanding than the people who left Jesus. The difference was that Peter believed Him, whereas they didn't. People who believe in Jesus will believe what He said about His Supper. As a mere man, it's not my place to substitute my explanations for His simple teaching. Hope that helps.

[@mattallred]

@@danielfinn9460 but he never made the claim which you are assuming to follow. therefore we are having the debate. and it's a claim that must be defended: transubstantiation is the claim, I say that's not what I got out of that passage, you claim that it's clear, I say it's not. We can have this debate because it's not clear. If it were clear we wouldn't have the debate. You can believe in what Jesus did and that communion is a central part of the Christian Church but still disagree on what it is. Because it's not clear, so for you to say that it is what it is because that's what he said isn't a valid point because he doesn't say it. And the question posed in this thread is valid because it isn't ever explained. Even in the passages in this video, it never says that this is the point of the Lord's Supper (as an event in time) it is a conclusion reached and this person questions the conclusion and you say the teacher was clear. Well he wasn't and if it was as important as this, he would have been clear. I believe he was clear that it was symbolic and that we do it in remembrance, and have yet to find anyone really explain what it is outside of "we just have faith" and if it's something that millions of people do on a regular basis, there should be a little more than that to it. I'm not saying test the poo for DNA but if anyone came out and said that it literally transforms in my mouth in a miraculous way then I'd say it's worth investigating but I don't hear anyone saying that they chew flesh when they eat bread. they take bread, they chew bread, they swallow bread. It is bread.

[@danielfinn9460]

@@mattallred Thanks for your reply. I think the Teacher's words are very clear. It's human reason which rebels and refuses to believe what it can't understand. Speaking of the bread, He said "This is My body," and speaking of the cup He called it the New Covenant in His blood, which is shed for the remission of sins. The problem people have is that they taste only bread and wine, and they accept only what their senses tell them. Therefore they fail to believe that He can keep His promise. I didn't say anything about transubstantiation. That's a Roman Catholic doctrine which is based on the logic of Aristotelian causation. They too demand a logical understanding of His words rather than being content to simply believe Him. You said that you "have yet to find anyone really explain what it is outside of "we just have faith" and if it's something that millions of people do on a regular basis, there should be a little more than that to it." Why? Faith is what Jesus expects from His followers. His clear words are enough. We shouldn't look to men to explain what He has declared. When it comes to the New Covenant in Jesus' blood, trust Him to do a miracle. Quit trusting your reason. The Apostle Paul also wrote of the New Testament in Jesus' blood, calling it "communion." "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 10:16). And, in chapter 11, Paul did write that Christians take communion in remembrance of Christ and to proclaim His death. But he also wrote that the Lord's body is there whether the communicant believes it or not. As it says in 1 Corinthians 11:28-29 "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." Again, the body of Christ is with the bread whether you and I believe it or not. So, it *is* a meal of remembrance, but it's not *only* a meal of remembrance. It is bread and wine, which are the Lord's body and blood.

[@mattallred]

@@danielfinn9460 i suppose the most important question is whether it is communion individually between god and man through presence or is it a communion amongst the body of the church through meditation and contemplation in a setting of remembrance? At least, that's where I'm seeing the debate to be. The debate of transubstantiation, presence, or symbolism all stems from the function of the ritual. The Catholic viewpoint seems to exalt the individual experience, that is, it is the Eucharist, the sacrament, the transubstantiation, it is activated by the partaker, given to them. In my experience within non-denominational "protestantism" it is focused on the group, passed amongst the congregation, a solemn moment of silence in which all partake at once. In the end, does it matter whether or not there is a physical thing occurring if it is known what it is? if it's purely an article of faith, and communion is done amongst a catholic, a lutheran, and a christian, then isn't it all the same? if it's purely individual does it matter what it means to the guy next to you? it's an inconsequential interpretation so long as you are willing to partake, because it is what it represents, the symbolism of what it is, that makes it what it is. The debate is moot because there is no reason to teach it because if it is what it is then it just is... I was probably 24 when I learned that people took it to be the physical or the presence, and I had taken communion as a baptized Christian many times at this point. I had never once been aware of this concept or that other people may have been perceiving it as such until a Catholic friend told me about it. Did my ignorant partaking in this ritual nullify it for anyone around me? Did it change anything about anyone else's experience or was mine somehow not the same because I didn't know that that was or was supposed to be occurring? If the answer is yes, then what was I doing? If the answer is no, then why do you even bring it up?

[@marybrewer8445]

In participating in the Holy Eucharist we have to believe by faith but the bread and wine is transformed into the body and blood of Christ that we receive. I stress this because Jesus said this at the Last Supper. The apostles handed this down from 2,000 years ago as I said and there is proof in the Catholic church this this exists. There are no exclusions there are no exceptions and there are no other churches that can make any other changes. It's like whether something is true or fake. Figure it out

[@michaelwolfe8888]

When, Jesus said this is my body (and blood) - before his crucifixion - did he miraculously transform that bread and wine to become his body and blood? It would seem that must have been the case. There's nothing in the scriptures to indicate that he meant that in the future the bread and wine would be his body and blood, but not yet at the time of his declaration. What are we to think about what happens to Jesus' body and blood during the process of normal human digestion and all that entails?

[@godslittleman5451]

Jesus was in his body when he said it. Therefore it would be impossible to obey him at the last supper or in John Chapter 6. Of course it’s symbolic. He’s in his body now also. Notice he said I’ll no more drink the fruit of the vine, meaning: he’s in his body. Notice also, that we have no instructions as how to prepare his body and blood if we are to drink it and eat it. The Jews received specific instruction as to how to prepare the Passover. You would think that God would continue that instruction with his own Sons body. If communion were essential for salvation, which it is not, then we would have much more information about how to prepare it. Otherwise we do what Catholic tyrants did. We make something up.

[@RyanDavidFerguson]

While I agree with the real presence of Christ's flesh and blood in the Eucharist, I'm not a big fan of the first argument. The fact that "I am the door" doesn't have direct grammatical symmetry to "This is my flesh" isn't a good argument against both statements being symbolic. We would never use such strict regulations to differentiate literal language from non-literal language in any other context, so it's an arbitrary rule to apply here. Again, I'm saying this as someone who agrees that we really do receive the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ in communion.

[@jonhowerton2537]

Ryan Ferguson “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. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on 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 whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."” ‭‭John‬ ‭6:53-58‬ ‭ESV‬‬ If you read all the way till the end of john 6. When the Pharisees leave his apostles are still having a hard time understanding, that’s when Jesus will explain if it’s a parable or a hard teaching. But he kept going with it, so we know he’s being literal, followers even left and he didn’t stop them. “After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you want to go away as well?" Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life,” ‭‭John‬ ‭6:66-68‬ ‭ESV‬‬

[@smokeybirdman]

@@jonhowerton2537 he who 'drinks' my blood How is eating the eucharist drinking!? Even if their is body and blood in the eucharist, how does one 'drink' thereof?

[@jonhowerton2537]

@@smokeybirdman You Drink the wine. The wine turns to blood. but yes the catechism teaches the body and blood is present in the Eucharist as well.

[@smokeybirdman]

@@jonhowerton2537 but you don't drink the wine do you?

[@jonhowerton2537]

smokeybirdman yeah at confirmation and another time I can’t remember. But usually yeah your right you dont. Only the priest and deacons. Yeah that made me worried I was like it says the body and blood. But knowing I get to experience it at confirmation eased my questioning.

[@ronobvious1785]

So the sacrament is not symbolic. Agreed. However, what about the Reformed view? You have some Calvinistic experience in your background if I remember correctly. I don't really "get" their view other than they argue for Christ's presence in some (non-symbolic) way. How would that viewpoint compare to the Lutheran view?

[@jnota1]

I ordered the book.

[@joneill3dg]

“But I say to you I will not drink of this FRUIT of the vine”” conveniently glossed over my friend

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

This is a reference to the fourth cup. The Passover ritual required that the Jews drink four cups of wine, each one signifying something. But Jesus only drank three at the Last Supper. The apostles must have thought that to be strange. Then, the next day on the cross drinks from a sponge---the ceremonial fourth cup of the Passover. After that Jesus said ",It is finished"-----the Passover and the Levitical laws and the Old Covenant were finished, and the New Covenant prophesied at Jeremiah 31:31 had begun. See Scott Hahn's video "The Fourth Cup".

[@kilemyers784]

@@GeorgePenton-np9rh "it's only symbolic if it fits my theology"

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

@@kilemyers784 Of course the only real reason Protestants deny Jesus's Real Presence in Holy Communion is that if they did, they would have to believe in the supernatural powers of the Catholic priesthood and come under those priests' authority, and they will be hanged (most of them) before they do that. The Holy Eucharist becomes the Holy Eucharist only when a validly ordained Catholic or Eastern Orthodox priest pronounces the words "this is my body" and "this is my blood" over the bread and wine.

[@kilemyers784]

@@GeorgePenton-np9rh I'm a protestant and I believe in the real presence of The Lord at the supper.... but we aren't eating His flesh and blood. He is in the midst of us because during the supper we gather in His name in remberence. If Lutherans say they read the plain text then let's read the plain text. Luke 22:7-20 KJV Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. [8] And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat. [9] And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare? [10] And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in. [11] And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? [12] And he shall shew you a large upper room furnished: there make ready. [13] And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. [14] And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. [15] And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: [16] For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. [17] And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: [18] For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. [19] And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. [20] Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. It's a passover meal, The Lord is partaking of it. HE BLESSES AND THEN BRAKES the bread. And say do this in rememberance of me He pours out the wine and says this is my blood do this in rememberance of me. Now ask yourself what happened at the crucifixion? His body was broken for us, His blood was poured out for us. Paul reiterates this 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 KJV Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. [18] For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. [19] For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. [20] When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. [21] For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. [22] What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. [23] For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: [24] And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. [25] After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. [26] For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. [27] Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. [30] For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. [31] For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. [32] But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. [33] Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. [34] And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. Paul is rebuking the people that come to the supper just to eat and drink not realizing this is a feast of rememberence as He says. We do this to SHEW the Lord's death until He comes. We break the bread like His body was broken for us, we pour out the wine like His blood was poured out for us. It is a physical sign to remember Him by. Now for the presence part. Here's a passage showing that the breaking of bread is to remember Him Luke 24:25-34 KJV Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: [26] Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? [27] And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. [28] And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further. [29] But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. [30] And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. [31] And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. [32] And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? [33] And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, [34] Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. And here's to show His presence is in the midst of us when we gather in His name Matthew 18:20 KJV For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Now here's the full proof of this Luke 24:35 KJV And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread. Acts 2:42 KJV And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Acts 2:46-47 KJV And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, [47] Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

[@mathewlowrey2734]

Lutherans agree with you that the bread is bread, and the wine is wine. As you say, the bible speaks of it that way. We just also beleive that somehow, at the same time, it is also His Body, and His Blood. We don't beleive like the catholics that it somehow stops being wine...but that somehow, while remaining true wine, it is truly his blood too. For a similar tension...reference Jesus's full humanity, and full divinity, in one person.

[@amelialin8877]

Jesus said: Do this in remembrance of me.

[@robertlehnert4148]

He did not say that, because he was not speaking English.

[@34Packardphaeton]

.. He DID say that... likely in the Aramaic language.

[@robertlehnert4148]

@@34Packardphaeton As Cardinal Wiseman pointed out, 100+ years ago, Aramaic has over 30 words or phrases that mean "this means...stands for... represents...etc...". The most common word in Koine Greek for the same is "tupus", where we get "type" as in "typology". Tupus is NEVER be used in any of the Eucharist passages. " Amanenesis" is the word translatef as "remembrance" in the Synoptics, and when used almost entirely in the Septuagint Tanach, ESPECIALLY in connection with physical Sacrifice, it means "an ongoing Sacrifice that binds past and future generations in a covenant relationship".

[@34Packardphaeton]

You began well here, with your linguistic knowledge. However, Jesus was NOT speaking literally in the Upper Room, at the so-called Last Supper. There are numerous Biblical passages that confirm this. I will close with the following verse from Romans, Ch. 10, v. 4.: "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." It is belief, it is faith --- NOT something that we "do".. such as taking bread (and for some, wine). Christ is never to be sacrificed again, per the book of Hebrews, Chapters 9 and 10. The church of Rome asserts that Christ is re-sacrificed again at every mass. This is patently and totally false. "The just shall live by faith" appears in both Habakkuk and in Romans. While there is a promised covenant for those who believe that Christ is the Redeemer, communion is NOT a sacrifice. That is blasphemy. Read Romans 10:17.. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God". Notice that faith does NOT comes from participation in a 'mass'. The Bible clearly does not support that contention. The Bible is the ultimate authority --- never a given 'church'.

[@34Packardphaeton]

You begin well, with your linguistic knowledge. However, the Bible clearly states, notably in the book of Hebrews, that there is NO "ongoing sacrifice". Hebrews 9:24 - 28 clearly state in two places that Christ offered Himself ONCE. Yes, there is a covenant for those who believe, those who receive "faith apart from the law" per Romans 3:21. But there is NO covenant relationship from merely participating in a 'mass' --- there is no Biblical basis for such assertion.

[@christian11111]

I expect no one to see this comment since this is such a old video now, but could someone help me understand the importance of this belief? I have always believed that the bread and wine have a spiritual connection and representation of Christ's body/blood, but to believe that it actually becomes his flesh and blood confuses me. Does it really matter what we believe on this topic? I don't see how it is tied to salvation but instead tied to a believers relationship with God, and even still I struggle to see how viewing the eucharist as more spiritual than physical transubstantiation would affect one's relationship with God at all. Any help would be great, thank you.

[@Mygoalwogel]

The Bible does not only say that the Lord's Supper is done in remembrance: Matthew 26:28 Jesus calls it the blood of the covenant. Hebrews 9:20 The author quotes Moses saying the exact same words about real blood. There is no precedent here for saying "is" means "represents." 1 Corinthians 10:16 The bread and the cup are a koinonia (co-union/intimacy/participation/contribution/distribution) of the body and blood of Christ. 1 Cor 11:20 There is an objectively true Lord's Supper. Unreconciled schism within the congregation make it objectively not the Lord's Supper. 1 Cor 10:21-22 The Lord, whose name is Jealous, is jealous of his cup and his table. 1 Cor 11:23 The Lord specifically and personally revealed the Supper to Paul. 1 Cor 11:27 Misuse of the Lord's Supper is not just a bad reenactment. It makes you guilty of sin against the very body and blood of the Lord. 1 Cor 11:28-30 Mere reenactments do not require earnest soul searching on pain of punishment and death. Therefore true Christian faith in these words: "This is my body which is for you, … This is my blood of the new covenant," must take all into account. 1 Cor 5:11 We are not to eat even secular food with christians who do not accept correction. Guests, whose lives are unknown to the pastor, should be catechised first. "Revilers" (who insult our face value belief) are rightly excluded. It is important because it is one way God gives our faith an anchor. Christ says, "Take and eat/drink. This is my body/blood *for you* for the forgiveness of sins." Have you heard? Is it for you? Rejoice! If you can say yes to both questions then it is just as you believe. No need to get anxious about whether or not your faith is really really genuine. Christ has this promise for the weak.

[@kevinwynn6582]

If a pastor doesn't believe that the bread is truly the body of Christ does it still become the body of Christ in the communion service?

[@jmj5388]

Yes. However, the celebrant must be either a Roman Catholic or an Orthodox priest who prays the words of Consecration over the bread and wine.

[@josephjones4207]

I am Baptist. It is the true body of Christ

[@jupiterinaries6150]

But after saying, this is my body, this is my blood, He then says He will not drink of the fruit of the vine until a later time. Both of these statements are preceded by a reference to the drink as being wine, poetically known as fruit of the vine. Why is Jesus referring to what he previously called His Blood once again as fruit of the vine? If it was now His Blood why didnt he refer to the content of the Cup, in the futur, as His Blood instead of fruit of the vine which was indicative of the previous state of being non-blood?

[@flashhog01]

I'm not sure I'm answering your question but if I understand correctly are you asking about transubstantiation? Lutherans do not believe the bread stops being bread or wine stops being wine. They are joined with Christ's body and blood similar to how his divinity was joined with his humanity.

[@aaroncarlson1162]

za zen because there is both an earthly and heavenly species being received, something can have more than one identity but still be referred to by only one of its identities.

[@jupiterinaries6150]

flashhog01 I wasn't thinking about transubstantiation. But Jesus twice emphasized the natural state of the wine both before and after the Blood reference, He seems to be drawing away the emphasis upon it being and remaining His Blood, as there are two natural-state references and a single Blood reference.

[@jupiterinaries6150]

Aaron Carlson hmm. Yes he is identifying wine as His Blood but he seems to emphasis the natural state of the wine more. Intepreting this passage, common experience tells us that wine is not blood or vice versa. It just seems that Our Lord would not try to confuse us with this as an issue. He gave us reason and experience as guides for everday life.

[@aaroncarlson1162]

za zen i'm not saying he didn't give us our reason lol - but if you look at the Eucharistic passages throughout all of the New Testament in context with one another, to me it seems very clear that he's meant to be taken literally. For instance, he has his entire discourse in John six where people go away disgusted/infuriated with him (he doesn't "correct them" interestingly enough), then he tells the disciples "this is my body; this is my blood" (The same God that said, "let there be light," and there was simply by the speaking of it… Now incarnate)... and then after Saint Paul is converted, every time he refers to the Eucharist, such as in his writings to the Corinthians, etc. he always always refers to it in such a way that makes no sense if it's purely symbolic. I.e., "participation in the body/blood of Christ…" And, "some have become sick and even fallen asleep" (died - due to taking the Eucharist unworthily). I'm just saying, altogether I don't see why it doesn't make sense to take it literally, after all, if it's also bread and wine... isn't it amazing that Jesus would give himself to us in such an intimate way that wouldn't require cannibalism but would also accomplish an intense intimate communion with his very essence at the same time?

[@DanielFernandez-jv7jx]

Very helpful pastor, thank you! However, I would say that the first argument based on semiotics and parallelism is weak. It's as if you're saying that Jesus would never have used language differently in one particular context, or that the entire idea as a whole could not be metaphorical. I'm also surprised you did not use John 6 and refer back the the manna in the wilderness etc. But I've taken some notes on the rest of it. Didn't Clement of Rome have something to say about this as well?

[@lwdcourt]

I'm sorry but I would have to respectfully say I think the arguments presented here are weak and that they conveniently ignore other scriptural realities! 1) Literal ... is the clearest and by analysing each word we can't see any that are symbolic. Clearest? Since when is the clearest and most obvious revealing of what Christ said and meant? If you study His words, in most cases the obvious is not the real meaning and in others it doesn't represent the true depth of meaning. Analysing each word for symbolism is not useful when we consider the words Christ spoke weren't English, the culture He was speaking to wasn't Modern and in doing word by word analysis we're ignoring this. 2) Passover Connections... perhaps the most compelling element of the five but still fundamentally flawed. It's true that in the Passover meal Jews ate lamb but it's not true that this lamb was sacrificed.. the lamb used is symbolic along with the six elements... Matzah, Karpas, Maror , Charoset, Chazeret and Egg. Furthermore, the blood of the lamb is actually the thing that was used to direct the Holy Spirit to passover and it's not drunk! 3) St Paul's words in 1Co:10. The whole deal revolves around the word "koinōnia" which is being translated here as "participation" or "communion" but careful study of the word shows it's used variously 18 times in the NT... and is often fellowship. Thus it's entirely possible the verse in question should read .."Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks, fellowship in the blood of Christ?" In other words, to try to wrestle absolutely mean for the real presence from Paul's words here when it's not so clear doesn't hold water. 4) Dying and sick for grievance offense against the body and blood. Unfortunately, there is assumption here, one that is not born out in the principle of scripture. The assumption is that a physical act (drinking of the blood in an unworthy manner) is the offense. The reality is that the offense is clearly not the physical act. The physical act is just an outworking of the true offense of the heart, namely knowingly drinking of the blood in an unworthy manner. Indeed most Catholic apologists accept this principle and were it not true then nearly everyone who drinks would be potentially unknowingly guilty of this. Thus the offense is one of the heart, and could equally apply to the offense against the symbolic emblems as the real presence. Either way Christ's blood and body are the insulted. 5) Early Church... often used but the problems are several... i) The most often used texts don't actually spell out the belief being claimed ii) They are all 100+ years from Christ and, therefore far removed from the early church iii) Texts that suggest other belief and even the arguments in the earlier church are often ignored. The problems ignored....> 1) "On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread" .... unleaven bread is symbolic! 2) " While they were eating, Jesus took bread...." It was an ordinary meal with ordinary bread and ordinary meal, in the MIDDLE of the meal, Jesus instituted this command. It wasn't a ritual to be conducted on it's own. To verify the point in 1Co 21 "As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk" In Corinth the Lord's Supper was a MEAL that they ate and drank together. The problem was that some were eating lots and others weren't getting any, and some were drinking so much to be drunk. Irrespective, the Lord's supper was during an ordinary meal and that presents a huge problem for the real presence argument. Bread was being eaten before Jesus broke it and said... I'll let that thought sink. 3) "I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” A verse often ignored but highly important in context. If the wine to which Jesus refers is the wine that IS His blood then Jesus is going to drink His own blood with us in the Father's kingdom.... else the wine to which He refers is symbolic! 4) "Do this in remembrance...." We're given the reason for the Lord's supper, with absolute clarity.... to remember. Does the wine have to be blood to remember? Does the bread have to be body to remember? Of course, not. 5) Literally but not really.... The argument for the real presence centers on accepting Christ's words as literal... and if the bread literally become flesh and the wine literally became blood, there might be better argument. The physical reality is that they don't... and the second that's accepted then Christ's words are not literal. At best, He should have said "This bread is physically still bread but is my spiritual body..etc" The point is that Christ body and the bread are physical elements. They can be seen, touched and known for what they are.... so if Jesus meant something other than the bread physically becoming His body, we're already into non-literalism an the literal element of the argument goes out of the window. 6) Real presence... "I will be with you until the end of the age" Where can we go in this world that Christ is not present? Nowhere! He is literally present with us everywhere. The claim for His real presence, then is at best spurious and should be His bodily presence unless we're going to argue that His presence with us isn't real! 7) Jewish culture and context..... The disciples understood Jesus as a Jew in a Jewish land with Jewish culture, customs and belief. Within this belief was a fervent abhorrence of cannibalism. I've been around the wheel of argument that tries to escape the eating of Christ's flesh and blood isn't cannibalism, and although I found no satisfactory answer, I'll put that aside here. The fact is that the eating flesh and drinking blood sounds like cannibalism and yet there is no record of any disciple even being mildly concerned, confused or having difficulty with this! If they did why would they fail to record it for those who followed with similar difficulties?? 8) A verse not used in the five points but often is so I'll deal with it here... “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them." This is often used to justify the argument of the the real body and blood... and on the face of it seems to justify the argument well. However, reading a few verses earlier..." I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty." If we're being literal in the body and blood application then the very body and blood have to give us sustenance such that we are never hungry or thirsty. It matters not whether we mean physical or spiritual hunger here. Either the body and blood provide complete sustenance or Jesus is not speaking literally... and if v35 on isn't literal then it's difficult to claim v53 on are

[@yoryay2239]

Excellent. Faithfully Scriptural. A study of the relevant texts, in the original languages, would also draw out many more points against the sacramental view of the Lord’s Supper. Good stuff.

[@ntlearning]

Yes, very good answer. The Jewish agape feasts were removed by the church when the Lords Supper was done. Probably because they were gentiles.

[@emiliosanchez9406]

You are my favorite Protestant lol great explanation of the Eucharist

[@4jgarner]

Do you think that if someone believes the bread and wine are not truly Jesus' body and blood they are still Christian? Is this an essential doctrine?

[@Mygoalwogel]

Abraham did not know/believe that his "seed by whom all nations will be blessed" would be named Jesus Christ, son of Mary, son of David. Abraham was saved. Does that mean that when Paul said, "believe in the Lord Jesus", he was giving an unessential doctrine? It was not essential for Abraham. But Abraham believed every syllable God told him. So if God had told him the name of his Seed, he would have believed it. God told YOU, "This *bread* that we break, *is* it not a koinonia/co-union/distribution/contribution of the body of Christ? This *cup* that we share, *is* it not a koinonia/co-union/distribution/contribution of the blood of Christ?" Believe it.

[@mariom3044]

It would be good to ask a proofreader to read the manuscript. Unfortunately, the book has many grammatical and typos which are a bit distracting.

[@JeffWindoloski]

"Hoc est enim Corpus meum”

[@keith2218]

Jeff Windoloski from which we get HOCUS POCUS. A satanic priest of the Whore of Babylon DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER to pull the Exalted King of Kings and Lord of Lords down from heaven and stuff him in a cookie for perpetual sacrifice on Rome’s altars. This is blasphemy of the highest order and contradicts Hebrews 10 The Church of Rome with its Antichrist Popes (Bergoglio the White Pope, and his boss, the Black Pope Arturo Sosa, SJ) are diabolical evil Jesuits. Repent and believe the gospel. Come out of that wicked satanic system!

[@patrickrooney4601]

@@keith2218 So latin usage is license to spam anti catholic conspiracy nonsense? Absaloutely ridiculous

[@keith2218]

Patrick Rooney I’ve shared the biblical gospel and the truth of the evil of the Roman Catholic Church. She claims to be Christian, but her false soul damning gospel sends millions to hell! At this point, you cannot plead ignorance when you stand before Jesus as Judge.

[@keith2218]

@Patrick Rooney For the record, I am a former Catholic saved by the blood of Christ. As a sworn enemy of the Roman Catholic system and the Jesuit Order, I have made it my life’s mission to preach the biblical gospel according to 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and to preach hard against the greatest evil of all humanity, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH! Too many precious souls are in hell today because of this satanic system straight from the pit of hell.

[@jonwatson3271]

@@keith2218 Bro calm down. LOL.

[@henryfirus6856]

Martin Luther believed that in the Sacrament there is the true word of Jesus: "this is my body and blood". Luther believed in the power of the Word, the word attached to the element makes a Sacrament. The word attached to any element makes a holy Sacrament, in the Bible we see the word attached to bread and wine, water, and to a segment of the weekly time.

[@34Packardphaeton]

... Luther was wrong on this --- Zwingli was right!

[@abrahamalexander4369]

@@34Packardphaeton zwingli changing to words of jesus to be edgy

[@34Packardphaeton]

@@abrahamalexander4369 .. Zwingli was more correct than Luther in properly interpreting the words of Jesus.

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@34Packardphaeton Christ: This is my body. Luther: This is Christ's body. Zwingli: This is not Christ's body.

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

Luther, although in great error on many issues, to his credit retained the Catholic belief in the Holy Eucharist and all the Marian doctrines. He did unfotunately reject the doctrine of the Mass as sacrifice and the doctrine of transubstantiation. This latter doctrine teaches that when a validly ordained priest pronounces the words "this is my body" and "this is my blood" over the bread and wine, the bread and instantly become the literal Body and Blood of Christ, although the appearance of bread and wine remain. Luther taught that the bread and wine change into the Body and Blood only by the faith if the recipient. The Catholic Church teaches that the bread and wine are that in appearance only after the above words are pronounced (the consecration); Luther taught that the bread and wine are still bread and wine but that they are also the literal Body and Blood of Christ ("consubstantiation"). The Anglican belief is similar or identical to the Lutheran belief. According to the Catholic Church the Lutherans and Anglicans believe in the Real Presence but do not have the Real Presence because Lutheran and Anglican ministers are not validly ordained priests, but in Eastern Orthodox churches they do have the Real Presence because Eastern Orthodox priests are validly ordained. The EOs believe in transubstantiation, although they don't use that word (it is a Latin word and the EOs don't use Latin), but the EOs believe the consecration occurs when the priest asks the Holy Spirit to "come upon these gifts (the bread and wine) to make them holy", a phrase also used at Catholic Mass. While Anglicans and Lutherans do not have a valid Eucharist at least they understand that the Communion Wafer and Drink are far more than just symbols. Read John 6:48-61.

[@davegreene1198]

Point 1... Question... Was Christ observing the passover and doesn't that matter?

[@Eligalindo.t]

Hey Dr. Cooper, i have a question- when Jesus symbolically says "I am the door" isnt He basically saying the same thing when He says "this is My body" ? I (Jesus) am this (the door) - and - this (the bread) is Me ( My body). You asked what part of "this is My body" is symbolic but wouldnt it be about the object Hes talking about that would be symbolic? Wouldnt the object being spoken of be the focus of the symbolism? Thanks for any insight Dr Cooper.

[@Mygoalwogel]

_John 10:7 So Jesus said _*_again, “Amen, Amen,_*_ I tell you: I am _*_the_*_ door for the sheep._ Jesus literally is the door. There is no other entrance to the Kingdom of God. That's what the *Amen, Amen* is for. Moreover, ancient Near Eastern sheep pens often had a mere opening in the wall for a doorway. A shepherd would sleep in the doorway, keeping the sheep in and animals out, so he literally was the door of the sheep.

[@Eligalindo.t]

@@Mygoalwogel hey thanks for the reply, yes but Hes not an 'actual' door, Hes a person. He was using the example of the door as a symbol.

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@Eligalindo.t Your definition of door is not the definition of door in the ancient near east. See above.

[@Eligalindo.t]

@@Mygoalwogel ok, I see your point but why did Dr Cooper also say that it was symbolic? Which is why I used his example

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@Eligalindo.t In his continuing series on H.E. Jacob's Summary of the Christian Faith, he discussed how Jesus literally is the door. However in this video here, he's demonstrating how, even if door were a mere metaphor, as Zwingli assumed, the language is so different that no conclusion from one account can be drawn from the other.

[@steverentfrow2415]

Good video; thanks. But, I dislike the notion that Jesus' words, which are Spirit and Life, are being classified as figurative when He speaks His 'I AM' statements. Jesus said, "I AM the door", this isn't a figure of speech; even though it brings figures and thoughts in your mind about a door, or many doors, perhaps made from many different materials. If Jesus would have said "I am a door..." then it would be a figure of speech. Jesus proclaimed Himself as The Door; this makes all other doors figures, or shadows, or types that testify to Him as The Door, the true door. For it doesn't matter what a door is made of; the kind of materials do not constitute a door, but what it does. Jesus is truly the only way to the Father. He truly is the door. All other doors testify, or point to, who Christ is and what He does through the function of their operation. This applies to the other I AM statements too which corrals a testimony to the True and Living substance.

[@Mygoalwogel]

Yes! Yes! Yes! 🤩🥳 _John 10:7 So Jesus said _*_again, “Amen, Amen,_*_ I tell you: I am _*_the_*_ door for the sheep._ You feel safe because a thick rectangular slab blocks the entrance to your house. But here Jesus robs that of its doorhood. Jesus is the only door that can protect you from the intruder and let you into where you really need to be. That's what the *Amen, Amen* is for. Jesus said, _John 15:1 I am _*_the true_*_ vine. _John 15:1_ And he proved it by turning water into wine. This means that the garden variety grapevine is "passing away." 1 Cor 7:31. Mere allegories don't destroy their own figures. This is clearly not the same as if he had said, "The kingdom of God is *like* a vine." In these two parables, Christ points us *away from* the elements and toward himself, emphatically claiming their reality for himself. i.e. *I am* the true vine. Amen, Amen, *I am* the door. Forget those and look to me. When he says, "Take and eat. *This is* my body," he points directly *to* the element 🍞 and grants it reality. Have you ever read _The Incarnation of the Word_ by St. Athanasius?

[@steverentfrow2415]

@@Mygoalwogel , No, have not read that. Thanks for your affirmation and your brilliant insights.

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@steverentfrow2415 You can find it free online. It's a short, easy read. This book first gave me the notion that Jesus miracles and parables are not mere wonders and idioms. But your post put the whole concept into just a few clear sentences for me! I can send you a link if you like.

[@steverentfrow2415]

@@Mygoalwogel , Here's something I've written on Jesus' first recorded miracle in John's gospel: THE VINE Jesus first miracle in John's gospel is testifying to Himself and what he will do in giving us His life, eternal life. This Miracle testifies to a greater wedding that of Him being given to His bride, the church. It testifies to reconciliation. How does it do this? Jesus turns water in to wine. This water was to the brim on the purification jars. Water to wash away filth. Take a look at the flood of Noah's day. Water to wash away sin. All that were in the flood were washed away, drowned in the waters. But all in the Ark were lifted up from the earth and saved by those _same_ waters. Noah after the flood planted a vineyard, drank of that vineyard and was drunk brought about shame because of his nakedness. In this first (precedent-setting) miracle. Jesus turns water (Which I believe testifies to God's judgment against sin) and turns it to wine, a celebratory drink. How does water turn to wine? This happens by a process ("A Way", for our purposes) Jesus is "The Way" (process). A vine (The Vine) absorbs the water (God's wrath) it produces fruit, it is picked (Chosen), the ripened fruit is put in a wine press (Christ's passion and crucifixion), it is put in a celler (Tomb) until it is ready to be brought forth (Resurrection and ascension) to be accepted by the Master of the feast (Father) and shared with all who have been brought to the celibration to have as a celebratory drink (The cup of salvation). Where is the water? It is there in the Vine, and by the Vine changed to Wine. The wrath of God has been changed to the grace of God as it goes through the Vine. What caused this change? DiVine! (A little pun there. ;-) ) Noah, drinking from the wine of his own vineyard, brought him nakedness and shame, much like Adam and Eve's partaking of the forbidden fruit. But this Wine of the New Testament in His Blood gives us Christ's own righteousness to drink. It takes away our shame giving us the joy of the Spirit through reconciliation with God in Christ, a new man, new clothes, being clothed in Him.

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@steverentfrow2415 Marvelous! I've written down your email. I'd strongly caution you to delete it immediately. Bots are perpetually searching the web to spam, scam, pirate any address they identify!

[@jordantsak7683]

As always, very pedagogical and instructive. I wish there was in Greece a lutheran community in order this beautiful theology to be heard. But...only ''evangelicalism'' and ''pentecostalism'' here among the 0,2% of the population who is ''protestant''.

[@DavidSmith-sb2ix]

The Greek Orthodox Church takes a very similar view of the Eucharist.

[@jordantsak7683]

@@DavidSmith-sb2ix , yes, but they are soteriologically synergists. They present it as something you have to earn, not a gift. Not all of them, but many.

[@jordantsak7683]

@John Sluder , thank you.

[@lorenzomurrone2430]

Ιταλός εδώ, αλλά λίγο μιλώ και ελληνικά

[@kingharry6368]

Another great video, thanks for this invaluable resource!

[@soteriology400]

That same day in the Hebraic calendar, Jesus was handed over and was beaten, then on the cross He said “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit”. With this spirit we become one with the body of Christ. We are also not to live on bread alone, but every word that comes from the mouth of God.

[@Jere616]

We commonly use "is" for both actual and symbolic. For example, if I hold up a cup and say, "This is a cup." - "is" means actual because the word "cup" is the same thing that's held up. If I put the cup on the table and move it around saying, This is me driving down the street, "is" is being used to represent my car. Is creates symbolic or actual depending on whether the two items are the same or differ. Cars and cups are materially different. Jesus held up bread and cup which differ materially from his flesh and blood. My question is, why would Jesus use "is" to make dissimilar things equal if that's his real meaning as you're saying? Or is He using them according to usual rules of grammar?

[@lorenzomurrone2430]

Sadly the example you've given applies to some modern languages like English or Italian. Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic (alongside the majority of world languages) would hardly concede such a usage of the nominal sentence.

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

Your argument reminds me of Bill Clinton asking what the definition of "is" is. We can never understand Scripture if we play word games or assume that English grammar applies to all languages. John 6;48-69, in any language and by any rule of grammar makes it absolutely abundantly clear that the Eucharist is literally Jesus's Body and Blood. Catholics have the Feast. Protestants look at the menu.

[@mattallred]

If the statement is "This is my body" as he's holding up a specific piece of bread, how can you claim that any other bread is his body? What stops any other piece of bread from being his body? A blessing? by whom? If any other person said this is my body, it would be clear that the bread was not their body, and it was purely symbolic. If I was in a car accident and was telling someone about my injuries with a baguette and went, "this is my leg" and broke it, no one would think the baguette was my leg... it's a representation. If I said, every time you do this, do it in remembrance of me, and my leg, you would know what I meant. What did Jesus say again and again... I am the way, I am the truth, I am the life... He is the word... So he's using it as a call to remember his word and life in a symbolic meaning. Likewise, when someone burns a flag, they aren't just making a statement against a piece of cloth, but against a nation. It's similar to the unworthy manner passage, it is against the law in some places, it is punishable as a crime against a state, not just against a piece of cloth. Because it's representational. It's use a symbol in the midst of all Christian gatherings is central to remembrance. Christians gather to share the word, the gospel. And what better symbol than bread and wine as something accessible to nearly all people around the globe?

[@abrahamalexander4369]

Heretic.

[@mattallred]

John Smith nah

[@lorenzomurrone2430]

I love how you guys de-escalated it so quickly 😂😂

[@mattallred]

@@lorenzomurrone2430 I just solved centuries of religious debate i guess

[@neatestguy]

What happens (to me) if I see it as symbology?

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

What happens to you? You are guilty of heresy! However if you do not commit heresy willfully, if you really believe (despite John 6:48-69) that the Eucharist is just a symbol, God may not hold it against you on Judgment Day. Only deliberate sins cause us to lose our souls

[@michmichgatos8379]

So I believe it to be be bread and wine but with the spirit of the body and blood of Jesus ( if not that then literally his body and blood) . and the church I am going to (temporarily) takes it as a symbology and says "If you don't agree it's a symbology then you are not taking it with dignity and it's better if you don't take it" That is extremely extreme because the Bible says nothing like that whatsoever and In all honesty I don't think it matters to that extent literally or symbolically although there are verses such as John 6:53 which would scare me a little If I were you although as long as you believe Christ is Lord and He rose from the dead then I don't think you should be too worried. And with communion I would research more into it but take it knowing Jesus died for you and you are washed clean by his blood.

[@brianmatthews4323]

Why do you see it symbolically if it's as clearly literal as this guy says it is? Could it be because it really is symbolic? I read all these texts as a young fellow long BEFORE ever hearing Catholic and Lutheran teaching on them, and, apart from that teaching, I NATURALLY took it as symbolic. That's something to think about.

[@NnannaO]

Hey, Dr. Cooper. I very much enjoy your videos and I look forward to more of them. Two questions: 1. Why would the apostles have understood the Eucharist to mean that when they would have been looking directly at His (visible?) body? It seems that if he wanted them to understand what you Lutherans believe, more is required. If I were to offer you a symbol of myself, and said "This is me." I don't think you'd think I was trying to make the claims you think Jesus was trying to make. 2. How can your view be true when we receive the bread/body and wine/blood separately? Christ's humanity isn't divided between His body and blood. If He wanted the apostles to know that, it seems further explanation would be necessary.

[@Mygoalwogel]

Further explanation is, in fact, given in Scripture: 1 Corinthians 10:16 The bread and the cup are a koinonia (co-union/intimacy/participation/contribution/distribution) of the body and blood of Christ.

[@zarnoffa]

If you can believe a dirty rotten sinner is a member of His Body, you can believe a nice pure blessed piece of bread is His Body.