Responding to Catholics on John 6: "Eat my Flesh" | Leighton Flowers | Soteriology 101

[@HowToBeChristian]

Hey Mr. Flowers! Thank you for responding. I thought you were very respectful, and it helped to see the issue from your point of view. If you would like, you can add the link to this video as a comment on my video (telling people that you responded, etc), and I can pin it to the top. That way, viewers can easily view both sides in full. God bless you and the whole Flowers family!

[@Soteriology101]

So nice of you. ❤

[@PatrickInCayman]

​@Soteriology101 We want you to receive the Eucharist because we love you, and it IS the flesh and blood of Christ. This is the point of this debate.

[@apilkey]

⁠@@PatrickInCaymanExcept it’s not 👉LITERALLY👈 His flesh and blood. That’s the point of the debate. God’s Word said we can drink of the water of life FREELY yet a bottle of wine for communion is $24.99 at the liquor store. And you’re paying for a loaf of bread! 🤦‍♂️ You have a different definition of the word “literal.” Clearly you don’t know what literal means.

[@KyleWhittington]

I really appreciate your demeanor on this topic. Obviously, as a Catholic, I disagree. Have you encountered Dr Brant Pitre's Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist? I'd be happy to send you a copy if you're interested. I think when approaching this topic, the 1st Century Jewish perspective is extremely valuable. If not, no worries. Once again, I really appreciate how you handled yourself here. I thought you struck the appropriate tone and acted with charity.

[@roddumlauf9241]

Kyle, I'm an Anglo-Catholic. Brant Pitre's work "Jewish Roots of the Eucharist" is rock solid truth ! Leighton needs to read it, and the Early Church Fathers on this issue.

[@delbert372]

Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon recently posted very in depth, scholarly, and precise articles on Facebook on this very topic. Are you familiar?

[@laurenatkinson1892]

Such a good video, Leighton! I was raised protestant, now Catholic. So I totally hear you, and get where you are coming from. And am excited to see how Ferris responds

[@laurenatkinson1892]

Oh yay!! Sad to miss the live, but so glad you responded 👏

[@midnighthymn]

Thank you for doing this. Expect a lot of pushback in the comments from people who won’t actually engage with your arguments. It comes as a package deal.

[@drjcw]

Excellent teaching Leighton! "Do this in remembrance of Me." Anything else is adding to Scripture.

[@jamesgosmeyer]

"Do this in remembrance of Me" is not a standalone argument here. Do *what* in remembrance? "This" may be the Catholic Eucharist, or the Protestant understanding of the ritual.

[@picklerick1948]

I think this was much stronger case for side B than was shown in HowToBeChristian's first 2 videos. I look forward to seeing his response! And please don't feel as though you may have offended any Catholics, I think you made as fair a case as you could given your worldview. God Bless you!

[@jotink1]

Well done Leighton for someone who doesn't understand transubstantiation you brought common sense and scripture to bare on a key doctrine in Catholicism and ended the key role of every Catholic priest without knowing it.

[@lindsaysimplified]

I am here for this content too! I enjoy Trent Horn although I disagree with him on some things. But I feel he’s like you and very fair and respectful and has opened my eyes to what Catholics actually believe versus anti-Catholics straw-manning them.

[@randy-U.I.O.G.D.]

Leighton Flowers is honestly saying that he can not resolve in his mind that the bread and wine become truly the bread and blood of Jesus.

[@giovannivarlí]

This is so good. Thanks for doing this, Leighton. When I see his videos I get shaken. He holds to an exclusive Roman Universalist ecclesiology. He's in the same exclusivism the Orthodox have. Which is what he means by examining yourself to see if you're in the faith, which to him, can only be the Roman Universal church, under the bishop of Rome, with their infallible teaching.

[@midnighthymn]

Even though he’s Calvinist and I don’t agree with him on everything, I highly recommend Anthony Rogers’s videos for responses to things like this.

[@giovannivarlí]

@ link?

[@aldrichrasco2199]

Hi Dr. Flowers, thank you for being graceful in your response. In 27:51 when you start to mention about the substance having “no effect (on me)” it made me think of several Saints and Miracles of the Christian tradition, where people have substantially (yes, literally) benefitted from the effects of the Eucharist. There are several real examples like the miracle of Lanciano and blessed Therese Neumann who for example consumed the alleged Body and Blood of our Lord and lived purely from that for 40 years. Now the scientific studies in that along with other Eucharistic miracles may be falsified or incorrect. But if true, they uniquely corroborate with side A’s conception of the Eucharist. Evidences such as these may be discounted or dismissed due to several human biases and perspectives and traditions like Sola Scriptura. Therefore there is a certain restriction for side A people in engaging with side B. I could emphathize with the difficulty for us to understand each other due to the different epistemological upbringings of different people. Furthermore, us mere humans are flawed in many different ways. I’d suggest it’ll be wise to pray (and I’ll pray too) that if either of side A or side B are in error, that God leads both sides to the Truth he wants us to understand. Peace and love

[@albinoadrianocordeiro9929]

When Jesus said "do THIS in remembrance of me" we Catholics understand THIS meant "offer this sacrifice", not perform this symbolic theatrics.

[@albinoadrianocordeiro9929]

God Incarnating as a human being is way more mysterious than the Eucharistic miracle to me

[@clintd3476]

“Literal” in common parlance is usually equal to “physical,” eg ‘I literally felt sick.’ In more precise usage, “literal” means as it is written or used in literature, eg: metaphor, simile, etc.

[@HoytRoberson]

Catholic teaching did tell us that the elements are changed into the literal body and blood of Jesus. They continue to look like the accidents but they are literally blood and flesh.

[@littledeb]

I appreciate you doing this. It helps me better understand your perspective. I think to answer one of your questions regarding the interpretation of Scripture I can say that Jesus fulfilled those OT Scriptures. As it was said, He came to fulfill, not to abolish. The Jews’ meal was symbolic alone. We agree. If all Jesus came to do in John 6 was to speak only metaphorically, then how was that the fulfillment of their meal? Your interpretation says, “You used to do this meal in memory of past events of Passover and fleeing, now do this in memory of the death and resurrection you have not yet witnessed, but you will. Still a symbol alone, but a changed symbol.” To speak solely in symbols means that He is no different than prophets before Him. Moses performed miracles. Jesus performed miracles. Unless the symbols begin to be actual events, actual changes, how is He to be seen as anything more than a prophet who the Father brought back to life? It is because He is The Son. He is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. A great teacher I know says that the people were expecting the Messiah to be a lot of different things, but they did not expect the Messiah to be God Himself. Yes. He still used the symbolic language, but actual changes took place. Your argument that wine doesn’t become blood undermines that water became wine. His miracles don’t prove that He is a great prophet. His miracles are on a completely different level. Why water into wine? Because substance does matter.

[@HoytRoberson]

I'm confused. He accuses you of mixing metaphor but not telling us why he thinks the bread and blood isn't metaphor. It is simply because 'he says so.' Which is what he accuses you of.

[@sgtadhesive9044]

It's a big part of his video that Leighton got the recap from. I recommend checking out part 1 and part 2 of "what dies eat my flesh mean?" He goes into great detail as to why I am the bread is taken literally, and I am the door/good shepherd/vine/etc. Are not.

[@edgarsalaf]

A little sidenote about the topic of this video… Many brothers and sisters who believe in a more high church-ish manner, repeated many times the affirmation that “all christians have believed the same as them in church history, up until the Reformation”(this is not an exact quote, but a summary of the general affirmation of those who believe like this). Yet, this affirmation, to be intelectually honest, is not true in church history. And I said it on the chat. Divergent views on the Eucharist (and mostly every doctrinal detail you can come up to mind) have been part of church history and it is not responsible affirm that there was “no diversity neither change in some groups”. The truth is that there was diversity and change, and we should accept that if we want to be honest with church history. I will just quote this from Andrew McGowan: “The emergence of a more diverse picture of early Christian practice in this[Eucharist] and other respects may seem a threat to those who wish to maintain and appreciate tradition, but the threat is not so much to tradition as to ideology based on myths of immutable custom.”(Ascetic Eucharists: Food and Drink in Early Christian Ritual Meals, p. 277-278) Hope this helps to create better discussions in these topics, which seem to be “almost impossible” when the interlocutors from each sides seem to be believing as a dogma that their view was the only one existing in church history. Accepting diversity and change in church history(which is pretty diverse in basically everything) is the best way to center ourselves in the text of Scripture and its proper context. Which will actually improve the argument that each side can make. Notice that my intention is not to open a discussion about the Eucharist right now, neither making an argument for whatever my position is. Is just a small reflection after the live broadcast of today, which I think might be useful for further and similar discussions. God Bless You!

[@jrconway3]

This only got better the further I listened to it. (For some reason my original comment vanished...) Yes it has indeed become my understanding as well that "eat my flesh and drink my blood" was always about injesting in the knowledge of God and the knowledge of Jesus. That's what it was always supposed to mean. Its pretty clear if you read through and understand other contexts surrounding this, and John makes it even more clear that this was never intended to be a literal statement. Peter eats of Jesus' body and drinks of his blood, but then later says "I have never eaten anything that is unclean." Which makes no sense if he understood the Eucharist to be LITERAL! Another HUGE problem Catholics have, which also extends to many Protestants: Catholics believe that Jesus was eternally the Son of God from time immemorial. The Bible does not teach this. It says he "will be known as the Son of God" due to being born of a virgin. He existed prior to this point, and was not known as the Son of God until that point. This is the biggest issue I have with the Doctrine of the Trinity. No, what Jesus was known as is made explicitly clear in the Bible, and goes exactly with what you're teaching here Leighton: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Jesus was known as _the Word_ prior to being born of a virgin, where he also became known as the Son of God. Its ties in quite nicely how God in the Old Testament speaks of us "eating" his word or "ingesting" his Word, and Jesus, the Word (and Son) of God, also comes out and says we are to "eat" of him. Because he is God's Word. So by studying the scripture and studying what we were meant to do, our purpose in life, what God wants of us, we are "eating" Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood. John 6, the very same chapter where it tells us to eat of Jesus' flesh and drink his blood: "Does this cause you to stumble? 62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”" So literally in this same chapter he says "it is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing."

[@sgtadhesive9044]

Flesh =/= literal Spiritual =/= not literal St Paul in 1 Corinthians 3 says he wishes he could address them as spiritual people, but they are people of the flesh. He obviously isn't using those words to mean I wish I could address you as metaphorical people, but I have to address you as metaphorical nonphysical people.

[@jrconway3]

Yeah, the whole Catholic dogma about the Pope and the Catholic church being authorative really is the problem with addressing Catholic issues. You can't reason with Catholics because they already know everything they need to believe, and going against that belief means denying the authority of the Pope. Its impossible to reason with Catholics because of this. This is also why both the Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestants split from the Catholic church. Its just not possible to reason with Catholics. Now, its not possible to reason with Orthodox either, the main difference they have is they deny the authority of the Pope, but they're still very dogmatic about their traditions as well. I cannot be as patient as you, Leighton. You have done very well, but it isn't as easy for me to not get frustrated with Catholic dogma. Just reading the comments here shows how incredibly unhinged they are.

[@roddumlauf9241]

Mr. Flowers, we have the writings of the men who were disciples of John. John would have taught these men. Read what these men had to say about the nature of the Eucharist ! Have you considered the Orthodox view of the Eucharist from the 1st century on ???

[@delbert372]

You should have collaborated with James White on this one, would have been epic…

[@albinoadrianocordeiro9929]

The sacrament is a vessel to a real grace of God. A symbol is just a communication of an idea.

[@GratiaPrima_]

I really wonder how Leighton explains someone like myself. I wasn’t “raised a flat earther” in his analogy. I was convinced by the evidence and saw the truth we’ve always known since the apostles. I was raised Baptist for the record. I also think Leighton is misunderstanding the teachings of transubstantiation. And a sacrament. I hope he looks more into the teachings about substance and accidents. It just makes sense and jives perfectly with scripture. I do agree this was very respectful and interesting though!!

[@daltonbrasier5491]

I think he would explain your situation by saying that you were persuaded by arguments that he believes are false.

[@GratiaPrima_]

@@daltonbrasier5491 sure, but he seems to be thinking my conversion would be as nonsensical and stupid as becoming a flat earther (I promise, that’s silly) OR he fails to recognize converts to Catholicism like me exist. I know I did the latter when I was Baptist, I thought the only conversions were Catholics “seeing the light” and becoming Protestant. I was very wrong.

[@vinciblegaming6817]

The treatment of “sacrament” is really surprising to me. There’s a lot of Protestants claiming to be Hebrew and Greek scholars that act like sacraments are not biblical, but in reading some serious academic works on the OT, I realized it’s the sign of an oath. They are Covenantal signs. Like, why do they act like that’s a Catholic thing when it’s a Bible thing?

[@GratiaPrima_]

@@vinciblegaming6817 def a Bible thing, and a God thing. Some Protestant churches recognize this too!

[@albinoadrianocordeiro9929]

"In the Eucharist, we consume the Lamb of God as the Israelites consumed the sacrificial lamb. That Lamb is the RESSURECTED Christ. At every Mass, we consume Jesus's resurrected, GLORIFIED body under the appearance of bread and wine. We eat the flesh and drink the blood of the God who became man, died, and rose again. The body that we eat is the same body that hung on the cross, lay in the tomb, and then rose from the dead. That body is also the same body that passed through walls, that could be in Emmaus one minute and Jerusalem the next, and then ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father. " It's not cannibalism.

[@albinoadrianocordeiro9929]

I'll stick with St. Augustine: "“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]). “I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]). “What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ” (ibid., 272).

[@r.a.panimefan2109]

Perhaps talk to gavin on this one lieghton. Unfortunately hes calvinistic. But one thing calvinists do well is destroy catholism doctrines

[@albinoadrianocordeiro9929]

The real presence was the belief of the apostles “1 Corinthians 11:29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.” The only reason being because Jesus told them it was the real presence and they didn’t wisely decided not to gaslight God.

[@jrconway3]

That literally is not what that passage says at all. Just like how Jesus never declared Peter to be the first Pope, this is w retroactive fitting of something you already believe to be true.

[@vinciblegaming6817]

@@jrconway3 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. - 1 Corinthians 11:29 Copy and past from RSV-2 More context: Whoever, therefore, *eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.* Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. - 1 Corinthians 11:27-30

[@albinoadrianocordeiro9929]

@@jrconway3 , I'm reading the meaning that the apostles passed along to their successors. Ignatious of Antioch: “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]). Justin Martyr: "“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151])." Irinaeus: "“He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10-11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles” (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]). “If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33-32 [A.D. 189]). “He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life-flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2)." The center of the early Church was the "Table of the Lord", the Altar, not a pulpit. Christians got together to hear the word of God and offer the Eucharistic sacrifice as worship.

[@albinoadrianocordeiro9929]

@@jrconway3 keep on digging, you might find out that the belief that the Eucharistic is symbolic is a modern man-made tradition read onto the Bible.

[@somemedic8482]

Actually Leighton , just so you know. Catholics do believe you can actually worship the Eucharist(communion), since its the actual body and blood of Christ. When catholics enter their churches they actually bow down before the Eucharist. They also have what is called adoration where they sit in front of a Eucharist placed in a monstrance and actually adore it. I know this because i am a former carholic who went to catholic seminary.

[@laurenatkinson1892]

Interested to know why you are no longer catholic.

[@somemedic8482]

@laurenatkinson1892 its a long story. Would you be willing to discuss it elsewhere? Like via direct message or call?

[@r.a.panimefan2109]

Hey gavin it actually isnt bad to verse yourself in things like flat eart or young earth. U would be amazed how much those psedo sciwnce from the biblical interpretation actually hurts people. I.p inspiring philosophy spends alot of time warning fundementalism Think about people like niel degrass.tyson. He spends hrs teaching athiesm on the premise the bible teaches xyz. Verseing your self on the arguments can help evangelism. Also many calvinists are y.e.c. as are s.d.a.

[@sgtadhesive9044]

I know you didn't have a chance to review the over 3 hours of content that this guy who is worse than an idiot, he's a moron, has made on this topic. But he does address why the bread is taken literally (a word i think he uses to try and avoid getting into medieval philosophy for large portions of his videos. I prefer truly) is because Jesus did not go up to a door/shepherd/vine and say "this is my body" to anything other than the bread. The other i am statements are also used as explanations for his metaphors/figures of speech rather than the figure of speech itself. 1:18:00 Catholics would use a lot of the same verses you did. God seems to really want people to connect the idea of receiving the Way, the Truth, the Life, and the Word (made flesh) with physically eating and drinking. I really appreciate you doing this on such short notice and further sharing your thoughts on this doctrine. God bless you and your ministry. I have learned lots from you and the guys at Trinity about the errors of Calvinism. God bless!

[@tbojai]

To say that you think that the Catholic view of the Eucharist is “ridiculous” is an indication that your historical knowledge of this topic is very limited. This was the universal understanding of all Christians from the earliest times up until the Reformation. See J.N.D. Kelly’s (protestant) landmark work “Early Christian Doctrines” for a deep analysis of this position. Grateful for your work against Calvinism. God bless you brother.

[@r.a.panimefan2109]

Just becuase the majority think something doesn't make it true. The majority hold to inherent guilt of origional sin. Doesn't make it true. And it doesn't matter what a trad says. But what scripture does. Now the early patristics actually don't fully agree about eucharist. And especially not the catholic. You want a good source on this look up carm. They pull the church father quotes. It's not as clear cut as u think. Remember catholics ruled with a iron fist for over a 1000 years. U really think they can't poison a well. But regardless. Scripture first. Then tradition

[@tbojai]

@ Wow. Here’s hoping this comment isn’t representative of the level of debate on this channel.

[@katf5222]

The concept of 'eating' Jesus' flesh and blood is simple. You 'swallow' or imbibe' Jesus word, teachings, and all he is/was and make it part of you. Like eating food, you 'take it in' and 'digest' by faith and it becomes 'part of you.' Also, the more you 'internalize' all Jesus is, the more you benefit from that 'ingestion'-things like healing, health, and life. It's really that simple-and that profound. Jesus was, by all accounts a 'primative' unschooled in modern knowledge of biology, yet he spoke with an understanding of the biology of humans. This is further exemplified when he speaks of what 'defiles' a man in Matthew 15:= "Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated?"

[@JorgeIvanAlonso-si6hd]

He that seeth the Son and believes on him may have everlasting life (John 6:40). If you do not eat his flesh, you do not have life (John 6:53). It’s just weird to me that believing is enough to have everlasting life but not really because you still need the bread. Unless, of course, John 6:53 is not literal.

[@__-tn6hw]

Thats a first

[@craigsherman4480]

37:14 We would say that Jesus himself said so at the Last Supper. So we believe it because Jesus is God. Could you imagine Flowers and Aiken or Flowers and Bishop Barron sitting down and having a conversation about this? 47:39 Dr. Flowers, how I wish you would have watched the other parts of Ferris’ argument, because he has addressed the metaphorical arguments already. Thank you Dr. Flowers. This is the best argument I have heard from Side B.

[@daltonbrasier5491]

Its tricky arguing with a Catholic because your arguments are irrelevant to them. They cant disagree with the teaching of the magisterium without becoming anathematized. Its not an insult, its just a reality.

[@giovannivarlí]

exactly

[@Collins12246]

@@daltonbrasier5491 Well, I understand you. Won't the same apply to you and the Bible as well? No matter the arguments brought by non-Christians to disprove the Bible, you can't disagree with what you think the Bible teaches.

[@GratiaPrima_]

Why do you think Catholics are in such bad faith? Of course we want the truth, be it wherever it may be. We just recognize the Magisterium has the authority Jesus gave the apostles and has never and will never steer us wrong on official doctrine. We’re not Mormons blindly following a proven false church.

[@daltonbrasier5491]

@collins No, because I'm not infallible. You believe the magistrrium is infallible. I can be wrong. Arguments can change my mind because I got to my position by arguments. You got to your position by divine authority in your view.

[@Collins12246]

@daltonbrasier5491 Let me ask a question so we can understand each other better. Anyone who reads the Bible would see clearly that it teaches Jesus is our Messiah and that He died for our sins. I guess you believe this because you believe the Bible has divine authority. If a non-Christian doesn't believe this and brings all sort of arguments to refute this idea, if the arguments are convincing to you, would you give up your idea of Jesus being our Messiah and Saviour?

[@roddumlauf9241]

Leighton shows himself to be a neo-gnostic, ignoring the witness of the Early Church. The Body and Blood of Jesus in the Eucharist is central to the sacramental view of the world which God sent to us. Jesus himself is the primary sacrament of God, sent to us. No one in the Early Church denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist except for the Gnostics. Believe what Jesus said in John 6 and What Paul said about the Eucharist in Corinthians.

[@jrconway3]

Paul himself said the early church had started steering away from the faith. To say that the early church fathers are infallible is to say that Paul was wrong about his own assessments. If Paul himself says that some of the churches back then were already wrong shortly after he had left them, this argument is very easy to see as faulty. I don't blame the early church or claim they were non Christian. But it does prove without a shadow of s doubt that we always need to be like the Bereans--study the Scripture so we can know what certain people say is true. Traditions are very easy to fall into a state where they stray heavily from the original intent and often.change and evolve over time.

[@midnighthymn]

@jrconway3 Bingo!

[@drjcw]

"Do this in remembrance of Me." That's it!

[@TheKj85]

@39:30 Its not because some council of men say so its because Jesus says so. Matt 26:26-28 Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Still looked, smelled, felt, and taste like bread and wine. If you had a microscope it still would have looked like it as well, but because Jesus said that it was his body and blood in some Musterion (Greek for mystery which is where the word sacrament comes from) it is.

[@pdxnikki1]

The Holy Eucharist IS the source of our Christian life. If you are as I was & didn’t believe it, please do UNBIASED research from BOTH sides. Don’t just allow the Protestant magisterium to decide for you lest the Catholic be correct.

[@drjcw]

Just allow God's Word for unbiased research.

[@PatrickInCayman]

Leighton, you believe a tri-person God that existed from eternity spontaneously created the universe out of nothing. Then created man from dirt, THEN made himself a man, hung out with us personally. Then was beaten and crucified to death. Resurrected and came back to life. THEN ascended in heaven THEN he will decemd from the clouds and take over the earth. Then, after you die, you go to heaven and have your body resurrected and the end of the ages. BUT ... The Eucharist being the flesh and blood of Christ is a step TOO FAR?? and something like flat earth to you? Even when explicitly taught by Christ himself?

[@highlanders2157]

You really should study the 2000 year witness of the Church on the Eucharist before you say it's ridiculous... Do you know how many saints and martyrs you are calling ridiculous for their beliefs when you do this...

[@vinciblegaming6817]

I think a really good question is what would Jesus need to say for you to think he’s not being figurative . Because we have literal acts of eating symbols and signs of Christ throughout the scriptures - in fact, in some cases, commanding of eating it. From the garden and the Tree of Life to the Levitical Sacrifices and the Passover Lamb and manna. I KNOW a great many of the Protestants believe that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was a REAL tree and Adam and Eve REALLY and TRULY ate it and sin and death were the SPIRITUAL effects of this PHYSICAL act of eating. So why is Jesus as TRUE food and TRUE drink for our eternal life not seen that way? In spite the “verily, verily” that heads it off and the thrice repetition, getting more physical with each iteration? I don’t get it. God can create the world out of nothing in 6 literal days, but Jesus, the Word through which creation is made, can’t give a new nature to something in his creation? Are we NOT substantially different in Christ than we were before Christ?