The interpretation presented in the text reflects a misunderstanding of the sacramental theology that has been a cornerstone of Christian belief since the earliest days of the Church. 1. Misinterpretation of John 6:53-54 The assertion that Jesus was merely speaking symbolically when he said, "unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you," is not supported by the historical understanding of the early Church. From the earliest times, Christians have understood this passage to refer to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The symbolic interpretation that reduces these words to a mere metaphor for belief does not do justice to the intensity of Jesus' teaching, nor does it align with the unanimous testimony of the early Christians who were closer to the Apostolic tradition. 2. The Eucharist and the Fulfillment of the Law The claim that Jesus was breaking the Mosaic Law by instructing his followers to eat his flesh and drink his blood is a misunderstanding of how Jesus fulfills the Law. Jesus did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, and in the Eucharist, we see the fulfillment of the Passover meal, where the Lamb is consumed. The Eucharist is not a violation of the Law but its fulfillment, where Christ, the true Lamb of God, is offered for our salvation. 3. The Nature of Sacrifice The argument that the Catholic Church "repeats" the sacrifice of Christ in the Mass misunderstands the Church's teaching. The sacrifice of the Mass is not a new sacrifice but the same sacrifice of Calvary made present in a sacramental way. The early Church Fathers, such as St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, and St. Ignatius of Antioch, consistently taught that the Eucharist is the same sacrifice offered by Christ, now made present on the altars of the Church throughout the world. 4. The Real Presence and Apostolic Tradition The doctrine of transubstantiation, though later formally defined, is rooted in the Apostolic Tradition. From the earliest Christian writings, we see a clear belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. For example, St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the early second century, refers to the Eucharist as "the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ." The belief in the real presence was not an innovation of the medieval Church but a continuation of what the Apostles taught. 5. Faith and the Sacraments The text argues that faith alone is sufficient for salvation and that the Eucharist is merely symbolic. However, the early Church understood faith and the sacraments as inseparable. The sacraments are outward signs of inward grace, instituted by Christ. To deny the efficacy of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, is to deny the means by which Christ chose to impart his grace to us. St. Augustine famously said, "Believe, and you have eaten," affirming that faith is the necessary disposition to receive the sacrament, but not that faith alone suffices without the sacrament itself. 6. The Unity of the Church The Reformation's rejection of the Eucharist as the true body and blood of Christ created a significant rupture in the unity of the Church. The early Church Fathers, in their writings, emphasized the importance of Eucharistic unity. To deny the real presence and the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist is to step away from the faith of the early Church and to create divisions that Christ did not intend. The argument presented fails to recognize the continuity of Christian belief from the Apostolic age to the present. The Eucharist, as the true body and blood of Christ, is not a human invention but a divine institution, rooted in the teachings of Jesus and faithfully handed down through the centuries. To reject this teaching is to reject the very heart of the Christian faith as it has been understood since the time of the Apostles. The early Church's witness, as preserved in the writings of the Fathers, stands as a testament to the truth of the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist.
This speaker bears false witness! I challenge him to provide the alleged names of those allegedly burned for refuting Transubstantiation! And provide Papal documents calling for their deaths! As lies were told of Jesus Christ at His trial, so too even now of His Church by modern day elders like this speaker! Jesus Christ teaches the bread, WHEN BLESSED, "is My Body ". Fallible Protestants like this speaker, says to Jesus Christ "no it isn't!". Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
Catholics believe whatever their clergy tells them to believe! Some of the most senior clerics in the Roman Catholic church who have vociferously attacked homosexuality are themselves gay, according to a book to be published next week. Eighty per cent of priests working at the Vatican are gay, although not necessarily sexually active, it is claimed in the book, In the Closet of the Vatican. The 570-page book, which the French journalist and author Frédéric Martel spent four years researching, is a “startling account of corruption and hypocrisy at the heart of the Vatican”, according to its British publisher Bloomsbury. It is being published in eight languages across 20 countries next Wednesday, coinciding with the opening day of a conference at the Vatican on sexual abuse, to which bishops from all over the world have been summoned. Martel, a former adviser to the French government, conducted 1,500 interviews while researching the book, including with 41 cardinals, 52 bishops and monsignors, 45 papal ambassadors or diplomatic officials, 11 Swiss guards and more than 200 priests and seminarians, according to a report on the Catholic website the Tablet. Many spoke of an unspoken code of the “closet”, with one rule of thumb being that the more homophobic a cleric was, the more likely he was to be gay. Martel alleges that one Colombian cardinal, the late Alfonso López Trujillo, who held a senior Vatican position, was an arch-defender of church teaching on homosexuality and contraception while using male prostitutes, the Tablet said. The author found that some gay priests accepted their sexuality and a few maintained discreet relationships, but others sought high-risk casual encounters. Some were in denial about their sexuality.
This is completely FALSE. The Church Fathers, especially Ignatius of Antioch, who is a friend of John the Evangelist, taught the early Christians that the Eucharist is truly the Body of Jesus Christ: "They [i.e. the Gnostics] 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 the Father, in his goodness, raised up again." (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1) - c. 110 A.D. The earliest Christians of the FIRST century believed in the Holy Eucharist. Read the entire Chapter 6 of John till the end. You will read there that many of the people cannot accept the truth. Even Judas cannot believe the truth about the Eucharist. Only the true followers of Christ accepted his teaching. If you want to know what early Christians truly thought about this doctrine, read the writings of the Church Fathers. Those who deny that the Eucharist follows Judas's lack of faith, not the true apostles.
Jesus Christ teaches the bread, WHEN BLESSED, "is My Body ". Fallible Protestants say to Jesus Christ, "no it isn't!". Jesus Christ teaches "My Flesh is True food and Blood true drink ". Fallible Protestants say to Jesus Christ, "no it isn't!". Jesus Christ is the new passover Lamb to be consumed for our salvation! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
Josh has no proof that “eat My Flesh” isn’t literal. Josh is expressing his opinions. Notice how he doesn’t cite Scriptures to support any of his claims that “eat My Flesh” is a metaphor. Hi Josh! 😃
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. - John 6:63 Jesus even explains in that text that His words are spiritual, not physical eating of His physical body. God through Moses fed the whole nation as a type of Christ Who will feed the whole world. The fathers ate the manna but still died. Those who eat of the spiritual Bread from Heaven of the message of faith in Jesus will not die. Crystal clear if we just let the whole text speak for itself rather than cherry picking verses out of context.
@@HowToBeChristian it isn't my theory. It's Christ's own words in John 6. Read it carefully and prayerfully, asking God to show you the truth of His Word. Compare it also to the rest of the message in the Gospel of John, especially the second birth in chapter 3 with Ez. 36:25-27 as background to that conversation Jesus has with Nicodemus and the two resurrections in chapter 11:25-26.
Read the Early Church Fathers - some of who were instructed by the Apostles. They were unanimous in their understanding that the Eucharist (Holy Communion) is actually partaking in the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. If they got that wrong (Catholic Church) - why accept the canon of Scripture, which the Catholic Church also defined?
Because the Catholics don’t follow that very scripture, themselves, and parts of it are Hebraic anyway. Martin Luther wanted to put Revelation and James in a separate section-two books that are being misused today.
@@GracieDontPlayDatThat did not answer the question. Why do you use the canon of the New Testament as decided by the Catholic Church and reject earlier teachings of the Catholic Church?
Whoa, thought this was going to be a thoughtful and scholarly perspective on the interpretation of this scripture, not an anti-Catholic biased history on the reformation. The flash point for the Protestant split is widely recognized to be Luther's 95 theses, of which the Eucharist was not a subject. Today, the Lutheran church believes in the real presence of Christ's Body and Blood. Sure, they reject the term "Transubstantiation", but the belief is similar. The Anglican church also believes in the real presence. Note that the Eucharist was also not a part of the Great Schism when the Eastern Orthodox split from the Church.
(OK, the Lutherans and the high Anglicans may believe somewhat in the Real Presence, but they do not have it no matter how hard they may try to "consecrate" the bread and wine. For they do not have the priesthood which can only be given to a man from the Apostles through Apostolic Succession--the very thing they severed themselves from. And only a priest has the power to confect the Eucharist.)
This presentation shows the complete lack of understanding of sacremental theology. Complete lack of understanding and playing the some game of scripture twister. The "mystery" of the biblical scripture is hidden in plane sight if you spend some time studying the history and cultural understanding of Judiasm at the time of Jesus and going back to Moses. But to do this you have to go looking for "The Truth" not scripture and verses to fit your beliefs that were developed over 16 CENTURIES later. So, to believe this guy I have to basically say the Christian liturgy and the reason the saints martyred themselves was for symbolism? Yea, I don't think so.
A metaphor uses a figure of speech for rhetorical effect. Example: I am a door is a figure of speech used for the rhetorical effect of teaching that all must enter through Jesus. I am the bread of life is a figure of speech used for teaching purposes. Only the thing being taught is that you must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus. I don’t think this guy understands what metaphors are or how Jesus used them to teach. He entirely misses the teaching of the “I am the bread of life” metaphor.
At physical level wine, remains wine and bread remains bread, but at the spiritual level body of Christ is the sacrifice that is bruised for our sins and iniquities and wine that is simple blood that shed for atonement of sins
In the last supper Jesus said about the bread "this is My sarx/flesh" not "this is the symbol of My flesh". Much like israelites sacrifice lambs and ate the lamb's flesh, so Catholics eat and drink the body and blood of Christ every Mass.
More than "at the spiritual level," at the Consecration the sensed aspect of bread is no longer founded upon the substance of bread, upon "breadness": that underlying substance, or essential "form" of bread has been replaced by the substance of Christ's Body. It is one of God's countless miracles. Our senses perceive bread, and What underlies the bread in the Consecrated Host we do not perceive but we believe. We speak of the Three Persons being Con-Substantial with each other in the Trinity: this understanding of substance is at work in the doctrine of the Eucharist.
Protestants interpret the Bible literally except when they disagree with Catholic truths. John 6:53-59, "53 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. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” I think I will believe what Jesus said and what the early Church fathers wrote that they learned firsthand from the Apostles rather than believe some UA-camr.
The Jews were called to be roayal priests, just as we (through Jesus) are as well. What Jesus was pointing to was how he was going to sacrifice himself for them. The priests ate the meat offering of firstfruits and drank the drink offering. If Jesus is not your sacrifice, you can't be in his family, a royal priesthood.
I don’t recall the gentleman‘s name who debated James White recently, but he emphasized that the Roman Catholic Church does not “re-sacrifice“ Christ during the Mass. he explained that they “re-present“ Christ. I don’t remember the ridiculous explanation he gave for that, but it answered the so-called problem of the bloodless sacrifice since we know that scripture says that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Hence, re-presenting rather than a re-sacrifice.
The Roman Catholic mass is a terrible blasphemy, inspired by the enemy. Among other things, how can a mere man dare claim he is sacrificing the Son of God, who gave himself of his own volition on the cross? Roman Catholicism in this doctrine, in the worship of Mary and prayers to dead people and in other aspects show it is man-centred instead of Christ-centred
@@BillandLisaSheets-ct6kr So why don’t you reject the Catholic dogma of the Trinity from 325AD. Or the Catholic Bible shepherded by the Catholic Church for hundreds of years, rejecting other books to canonise in 397AD what you use in the New Testament today. If this religion is so blasphemous why don’t you reject what it gave you and you use and worship? Hypocrite. You are completely ignorant of what it actually teaches and ignorant of history. Just the typical ignorant sound bites. What is actually blasphemous is attacking the church Jesus established in 33AD and relaxing it with modern man made ideas like solar scriptura and solar fide. Heresy that is leading you down the wide road.
If you're going to attack something at least attack what we actually believe and not your ignorant sound bites. You just come across as a high school kid otherwise. So why don't you reject the Catholic dogma of the Trinity from 325AD? Or why do you accept the authority of the Catholic Church when it cannonised the Bible in 397AD - rejecting other books in circulation at the time? Modern, man made Protestant theology is simplistic, cherry picks or ignores significant parts of scripture and teachings from Jesus. Martin Luther’s interpretation tells me I can k’ll 1,000 people a day and not have to worry about being separated from God. That goes completely against what Jesus taught and comes from the enemy. You ar being led down the wide road.
Okay, got it. You have no idea what the verse means. Why do you think it’s okay to waste peoples time when you clearly don’t have any revelation on something?
They did not understand it at the time but now that we have the complete Canon of scripture we know from The book of John as well that Jesus Christ is the word how do we partake flesh and blood by reading the word
The old covenant required that the flesh of a sacrifice be eaten. Therefore, Jesus identifies eating bread, as He is the Bread of Life, with the flesh of the sacrifice. It’s not physically His flesh, but is spiritually. That much is very simple and easy to understand for all Christians. But the blood part doesn’t make much since, as consuming the blood is a violation of the Noahic Covenant. However, the priests had to be anointed with blood on their right earlobe, right thumb, and right big toe as part of cleansing and consecrating. Peter calls Christians a royal priesthood; all Christians need this consecrating. Rather than the blood of Christ merely cleansing and consecrating our outward members, it transforms us on the inside. I’m putting this here to get input from others and see their viewpoint.
@@fantasia55 you won’t find the gospel of Christ in the gospels. That’s Judaism and the gospel of the kingdom to Israel. Learn the Bible rightly divided. 2 TIM 2:15
The 1689 Confession states that Christ is present in the Lord supper. James White affirms this. The Lord supper is not just symbolic. The reformers didn’t think this.
Christ being present during communion and the Eucharist being the actual body of Christ and wine the blood of Christ are not synonymous. Christ said, “I am with you always “, but he did not mean physically present.
“This is my body… this is my blood” please break that down? I believe we can distinguish the two, the Lord supper and The Son. (Btw Eucharist means thanksgiving). We are not supposed to be arguing is Christ present in the sacraments or whether He is present on top, on the side, outside. He is present! It’s mystery! What we can all agree on is Christ said to do it and that’s what we must do. (Please use wine). if you don’t think Christ is present in the sacraments you’re gnostic!
Is this a Freemasonic channel? "G" is 3 in numerology, so "G3" is 33; the number of masonic degrees. The narrator is sitting in front of a brick wall; another masonic symbol. Also, he's sitting in an orange armchair. The word "orange" is "33" in numerology.
Look at the doctrinal statement of Rosebroughs congregation. They believe it's the literal body and blood. They also affirm baptismal regeneration. Why does he get a pass with the reformed Baptist crowd?
@@LilacDaisy2Some Lutherans do believe it is the body and blood, some don’t. But I don’t know of any who believe they’re resacrificng Jesus as the papists do.
If you are a Confessional Lutheran you believe it is true Body and true Blood. If you dont believe thzt you are not Lutheran. Its in our confessions. We only go as far as scripture. There is no re-sacrifice, but true Body and Blood.@@AstroMonkey88
Yes, people should be allowed to see a false distorted Catholic teaching without having to read Catholics defending their beliefs. God forbid people get to see both sides.
I am a Catholic and I heard misunderstandings and heretical view of Jesus's sacrifice. This video did not take into account the Mosaic command to eat the flesh of the lamb for israelites to be saved from the death just before they left egypt. In the same way the bread and wine, consecrated by Jesus in the last supper (and also consecrated by Him in every mass) become the spiritual foods of christians.
I dare you to go to How To Be Christian--the most recent video is a bible study on John 6 with fun graphics. In case you want to even have an inkling of what the other side actually holds. Instead of this fake news.
The interpretation presented in the text reflects a misunderstanding of the sacramental theology that has been a cornerstone of Christian belief since the earliest days of the Church.
1. Misinterpretation of John 6:53-54
The assertion that Jesus was merely speaking symbolically when he said, "unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you," is not supported by the historical understanding of the early Church. From the earliest times, Christians have understood this passage to refer to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The symbolic interpretation that reduces these words to a mere metaphor for belief does not do justice to the intensity of Jesus' teaching, nor does it align with the unanimous testimony of the early Christians who were closer to the Apostolic tradition.
2. The Eucharist and the Fulfillment of the Law
The claim that Jesus was breaking the Mosaic Law by instructing his followers to eat his flesh and drink his blood is a misunderstanding of how Jesus fulfills the Law. Jesus did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, and in the Eucharist, we see the fulfillment of the Passover meal, where the Lamb is consumed. The Eucharist is not a violation of the Law but its fulfillment, where Christ, the true Lamb of God, is offered for our salvation.
3. The Nature of Sacrifice
The argument that the Catholic Church "repeats" the sacrifice of Christ in the Mass misunderstands the Church's teaching. The sacrifice of the Mass is not a new sacrifice but the same sacrifice of Calvary made present in a sacramental way. The early Church Fathers, such as St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, and St. Ignatius of Antioch, consistently taught that the Eucharist is the same sacrifice offered by Christ, now made present on the altars of the Church throughout the world.
4. The Real Presence and Apostolic Tradition
The doctrine of transubstantiation, though later formally defined, is rooted in the Apostolic Tradition. From the earliest Christian writings, we see a clear belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. For example, St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the early second century, refers to the Eucharist as "the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ." The belief in the real presence was not an innovation of the medieval Church but a continuation of what the Apostles taught.
5. Faith and the Sacraments
The text argues that faith alone is sufficient for salvation and that the Eucharist is merely symbolic. However, the early Church understood faith and the sacraments as inseparable. The sacraments are outward signs of inward grace, instituted by Christ. To deny the efficacy of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, is to deny the means by which Christ chose to impart his grace to us. St. Augustine famously said, "Believe, and you have eaten," affirming that faith is the necessary disposition to receive the sacrament, but not that faith alone suffices without the sacrament itself.
6. The Unity of the Church
The Reformation's rejection of the Eucharist as the true body and blood of Christ created a significant rupture in the unity of the Church. The early Church Fathers, in their writings, emphasized the importance of Eucharistic unity. To deny the real presence and the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist is to step away from the faith of the early Church and to create divisions that Christ did not intend.
The argument presented fails to recognize the continuity of Christian belief from the Apostolic age to the present. The Eucharist, as the true body and blood of Christ, is not a human invention but a divine institution, rooted in the teachings of Jesus and faithfully handed down through the centuries. To reject this teaching is to reject the very heart of the Christian faith as it has been understood since the time of the Apostles. The early Church's witness, as preserved in the writings of the Fathers, stands as a testament to the truth of the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist.
This was very thorough. Thanks for posting it
Good job: all correct! One with you in our Eucharistic Lord.
@@JB91484 Thankyou for your detailed explanation of the Eucharist .
This speaker bears false witness! I challenge him to provide the alleged names of those allegedly burned for refuting Transubstantiation! And provide Papal documents calling for their deaths! As lies were told of Jesus Christ at His trial, so too even now of His Church by modern day elders like this speaker! Jesus Christ teaches the bread, WHEN BLESSED, "is My Body ". Fallible Protestants like this speaker, says to Jesus Christ "no it isn't!". Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
you don't understand the Eucharist. Catholics understood it, the Church Fathers understood it. Malachi professed about it 1:11, 14.
Catholics believe whatever their clergy tells them to believe!
Some of the most senior clerics in the Roman Catholic church who have vociferously attacked homosexuality are themselves gay, according to a book to be published next week.
Eighty per cent of priests working at the Vatican are gay, although not necessarily sexually active, it is claimed in the book, In the Closet of the Vatican.
The 570-page book, which the French journalist and author Frédéric Martel spent four years researching, is a “startling account of corruption and hypocrisy at the heart of the Vatican”, according to its British publisher Bloomsbury.
It is being published in eight languages across 20 countries next Wednesday, coinciding with the opening day of a conference at the Vatican on sexual abuse, to which bishops from all over the world have been summoned.
Martel, a former adviser to the French government, conducted 1,500 interviews while researching the book, including with 41 cardinals, 52 bishops and monsignors, 45 papal ambassadors or diplomatic officials, 11 Swiss guards and more than 200 priests and seminarians, according to a report on the Catholic website the Tablet.
Many spoke of an unspoken code of the “closet”, with one rule of thumb being that the more homophobic a cleric was, the more likely he was to be gay.
Martel alleges that one Colombian cardinal, the late Alfonso López Trujillo, who held a senior Vatican position, was an arch-defender of church teaching on homosexuality and contraception while using male prostitutes, the Tablet said.
The author found that some gay priests accepted their sexuality and a few maintained discreet relationships, but others sought high-risk casual encounters. Some were in denial about their sexuality.
This is completely FALSE. The Church Fathers, especially Ignatius of Antioch, who is a friend of John the Evangelist, taught the early Christians that the Eucharist is truly the Body of Jesus Christ: "They [i.e. the Gnostics] 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 the Father, in his goodness, raised up again." (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1) - c. 110 A.D. The earliest Christians of the FIRST century believed in the Holy Eucharist. Read the entire Chapter 6 of John till the end. You will read there that many of the people cannot accept the truth. Even Judas cannot believe the truth about the Eucharist. Only the true followers of Christ accepted his teaching. If you want to know what early Christians truly thought about this doctrine, read the writings of the Church Fathers. Those who deny that the Eucharist follows Judas's lack of faith, not the true apostles.
Well said
Jesus Christ teaches the bread, WHEN BLESSED, "is My Body ". Fallible Protestants say to Jesus Christ, "no it isn't!". Jesus Christ teaches "My Flesh is True food and Blood true drink ". Fallible Protestants say to Jesus Christ, "no it isn't!". Jesus Christ is the new passover Lamb to be consumed for our salvation! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
Symbolism is rarely THAT shocking.
I'm no yoga master, but
your making quite a stretch.
I think I’ll believe what the Bible says, and how Catholics interpret it, Scrouty.
Classic Protestant L taking what the Bible itself describes as a “difficult teaching” and removing the difficulty.
Josh has no proof that “eat My Flesh” isn’t literal. Josh is expressing his opinions. Notice how he doesn’t cite Scriptures to support any of his claims that “eat My Flesh” is a metaphor.
Hi Josh! 😃
He literraly does that. He quotes other scriptures to elaborate on the subject. You just don't like what he is saying.
@@tonymbondo I watched the video. He doesn’t. If you think he does, then share the Bible verse he gave.
@HowToBeChristian why don't you prove your position?
@@HowToBeChristiando you also follow the 10 commandments to ATTAIN salvation?
@@EPH113 God gives salvation as a free gift. What do you mean by “attain”?
Hebrews 10 Christ's sacrifice ONCE for all
Malachi 1:11
Malachi 1:11
It's the same sacrifice ONCE and for all, in which Catholics and other apostolic succession churches participate until the end of time.
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
- John 6:63
Jesus even explains in that text that His words are spiritual, not physical eating of His physical body. God through Moses fed the whole nation as a type of Christ Who will feed the whole world. The fathers ate the manna but still died. Those who eat of the spiritual Bread from Heaven of the message of faith in Jesus will not die. Crystal clear if we just let the whole text speak for itself rather than cherry picking verses out of context.
Your theory makes no sense. Spiritual does not mean “not physical”. Spiritual things do not have to be physical, but they can be.
@@HowToBeChristianwhat if it makes sense to me?
@@HowToBeChristian it isn't my theory. It's Christ's own words in John 6. Read it carefully and prayerfully, asking God to show you the truth of His Word. Compare it also to the rest of the message in the Gospel of John, especially the second birth in chapter 3 with Ez. 36:25-27 as background to that conversation Jesus has with Nicodemus and the two resurrections in chapter 11:25-26.
@@roberttrevino62800 Then you need to read the Bible.
@@HowToBeChristian so no legitimate argument. Gotcha
Jesus didn't say, "Metaphorically metaphorically i say to you..."
Read the Early Church Fathers - some of who were instructed by the Apostles. They were unanimous in their understanding that the Eucharist (Holy Communion) is actually partaking in the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. If they got that wrong (Catholic Church) - why accept the canon of Scripture, which the Catholic Church also defined?
Because the Catholics don’t follow that very scripture, themselves, and parts of it are Hebraic anyway. Martin Luther wanted to put Revelation and James in a separate section-two books that are being misused today.
@@GracieDontPlayDatThat did not answer the question. Why do you use the canon of the New Testament as decided by the Catholic Church and reject earlier teachings of the Catholic Church?
Get behind me Satan.
Whoa, thought this was going to be a thoughtful and scholarly perspective on the interpretation of this scripture, not an anti-Catholic biased history on the reformation. The flash point for the Protestant split is widely recognized to be Luther's 95 theses, of which the Eucharist was not a subject. Today, the Lutheran church believes in the real presence of Christ's Body and Blood. Sure, they reject the term "Transubstantiation", but the belief is similar. The Anglican church also believes in the real presence. Note that the Eucharist was also not a part of the Great Schism when the Eastern Orthodox split from the Church.
(OK, the Lutherans and the high Anglicans may believe somewhat in the Real Presence, but they do not have it no matter how hard they may try to "consecrate" the bread and wine. For they do not have the priesthood which can only be given to a man from the Apostles through Apostolic Succession--the very thing they severed themselves from. And only a priest has the power to confect the Eucharist.)
This presentation shows the complete lack of understanding of sacremental theology. Complete lack of understanding and playing the some game of scripture twister. The "mystery" of the biblical scripture is hidden in plane sight if you spend some time studying the history and cultural understanding of Judiasm at the time of Jesus and going back to Moses.
But to do this you have to go looking for "The Truth" not scripture and verses to fit your beliefs that were developed over 16 CENTURIES later. So, to believe this guy I have to basically say the Christian liturgy and the reason the saints martyred themselves was for symbolism? Yea, I don't think so.
Huh? "According to the Catholic Church, eat the ACTUAL flesh"? Either this is strawman or mere ignorance of our faith.
I'd say strawman.
A metaphor uses a figure of speech for rhetorical effect. Example: I am a door is a figure of speech used for the rhetorical effect of teaching that all must enter through Jesus.
I am the bread of life is a figure of speech used for teaching purposes. Only the thing being taught is that you must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus.
I don’t think this guy understands what metaphors are or how Jesus used them to teach. He entirely misses the teaching of the “I am the bread of life” metaphor.
At physical level wine, remains wine and bread remains bread, but at the spiritual level body of Christ is the sacrifice that is bruised for our sins and iniquities and wine that is simple blood that shed for atonement of sins
In the last supper Jesus said about the bread "this is My sarx/flesh" not "this is the symbol of My flesh". Much like israelites sacrifice lambs and ate the lamb's flesh, so Catholics eat and drink the body and blood of Christ every Mass.
More than "at the spiritual level," at the Consecration the sensed aspect of bread is no longer founded upon the substance of bread, upon "breadness": that underlying substance, or essential "form" of bread has been replaced by the substance of Christ's Body. It is one of God's countless miracles. Our senses perceive bread, and What underlies the bread in the Consecrated Host we do not perceive but we believe. We speak of the Three Persons being Con-Substantial with each other in the Trinity: this understanding of substance is at work in the doctrine of the Eucharist.
Protestants interpret the Bible literally except when they disagree with Catholic truths. John 6:53-59, "53 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. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
I think I will believe what Jesus said and what the early Church fathers wrote that they learned firsthand from the Apostles rather than believe some UA-camr.
The Jews were called to be roayal priests, just as we (through Jesus) are as well. What Jesus was pointing to was how he was going to sacrifice himself for them. The priests ate the meat offering of firstfruits and drank the drink offering. If Jesus is not your sacrifice, you can't be in his family, a royal priesthood.
I don’t recall the gentleman‘s name who debated James White recently, but he emphasized that the Roman Catholic Church does not “re-sacrifice“ Christ during the Mass. he explained that they “re-present“ Christ.
I don’t remember the ridiculous explanation he gave for that, but it answered the so-called problem of the bloodless sacrifice since we know that scripture says that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Hence, re-presenting rather than a re-sacrifice.
Jesus actually said Do This To Make Me Present to yo
So how do you receive eternal life?
Through faith alone in Christ alone
Repent from sin and put your faith in Jesus Christ.
@@christopheraltic6717 repent from sin? What that mean?
@@christopheraltic6717 and faith in Jesus? Faith in what?
@@PennySmart penny be smart!
This is sooo misleading😢😢😢
The Roman Catholic mass is a terrible blasphemy, inspired by the enemy. Among other things, how can a mere man dare claim he is sacrificing the Son of God, who gave himself of his own volition on the cross? Roman Catholicism in this doctrine, in the worship of Mary and prayers to dead people and in other aspects show it is man-centred instead of Christ-centred
"My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink"
I think it is one of the most blasphemous of the false religions.
@@BillandLisaSheets-ct6krAnd what proof do you have to make such claim?
@@BillandLisaSheets-ct6kr So why don’t you reject the Catholic dogma of the Trinity from 325AD. Or the Catholic Bible shepherded by the Catholic Church for hundreds of years, rejecting other books to canonise in 397AD what you use in the New Testament today. If this religion is so blasphemous why don’t you reject what it gave you and you use and worship? Hypocrite. You are completely ignorant of what it actually teaches and ignorant of history. Just the typical ignorant sound bites. What is actually blasphemous is attacking the church Jesus established in 33AD and relaxing it with modern man made ideas like solar scriptura and solar fide. Heresy that is leading you down the wide road.
If you're going to attack something at least attack what we actually believe and not your ignorant sound bites. You just come across as a high school kid otherwise.
So why don't you reject the Catholic dogma of the Trinity from 325AD? Or why do you accept the authority of the Catholic Church when it cannonised the Bible in 397AD - rejecting other books in circulation at the time?
Modern, man made Protestant theology is simplistic, cherry picks or ignores significant parts of scripture and teachings from Jesus. Martin Luther’s interpretation tells me I can k’ll 1,000 people a day and not have to worry about being separated from God. That goes completely against what Jesus taught and comes from the enemy. You ar being led down the wide road.
Okay, got it. You have no idea what the verse means. Why do you think it’s okay to waste peoples time when you clearly don’t have any revelation on something?
They did not understand it at the time but now that we have the complete Canon of scripture we know from The book of John as well that Jesus Christ is the word how do we partake flesh and blood by reading the word
The old covenant required that the flesh of a sacrifice be eaten. Therefore, Jesus identifies eating bread, as He is the Bread of Life, with the flesh of the sacrifice. It’s not physically His flesh, but is spiritually. That much is very simple and easy to understand for all Christians. But the blood part doesn’t make much since, as consuming the blood is a violation of the Noahic Covenant. However, the priests had to be anointed with blood on their right earlobe, right thumb, and right big toe as part of cleansing and consecrating. Peter calls Christians a royal priesthood; all Christians need this consecrating. Rather than the blood of Christ merely cleansing and consecrating our outward members, it transforms us on the inside. I’m putting this here to get input from others and see their viewpoint.
All old testament practice and a shadow of things to come …. The final sacrifice. Done.
@@EPH113It's practiced in heaven eternally, per Revelation.
@@fantasia55 ok. Have a great day!
@@EPH113 Jesus is the Lamb of God.
@@fantasia55 you won’t find the gospel of Christ in the gospels. That’s Judaism and the gospel of the kingdom to Israel. Learn the Bible rightly divided. 2 TIM 2:15
You are wrong.
The 1689 Confession states that Christ is present in the Lord supper. James White affirms this. The Lord supper is not just symbolic. The reformers didn’t think this.
What is your position?
@@EPH113he already stated he is 1689 Reformed Baptist
@@roberttrevino62800 I don’t see where he said he was. He said the 1689 Confession states something. I state something as well.
Christ being present during communion and the Eucharist being the actual body of Christ and wine the blood of Christ are not synonymous.
Christ said, “I am with you always “, but he did not mean physically present.
“This is my body… this is my blood” please break that down? I believe we can distinguish the two, the Lord supper and The Son. (Btw Eucharist means thanksgiving). We are not supposed to be arguing is Christ present in the sacraments or whether He is present on top, on the side, outside. He is present! It’s mystery! What we can all agree on is Christ said to do it and that’s what we must do. (Please use wine). if you don’t think Christ is present in the sacraments you’re gnostic!
Common Protestant L
Very good job brother best expo
Malachi:11
Malachi 1:11
Is this a Freemasonic channel? "G" is 3 in numerology, so "G3" is 33; the number of masonic degrees. The narrator is sitting in front of a brick wall; another masonic symbol. Also, he's sitting in an orange armchair. The word "orange" is "33" in numerology.
I'm assuming you're a parody and not actually serious 😂
If you look for that foolishness you will see it everywhere. G3 is fine, and not Freemason.
It stands for Gospel, Grace, Glory, hence the G3 name.
Get out of the Rabbit hole, Alice. You could have found that in a 10 second Google search
7:29 - Lutherans, too.
Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, not transsubstantiation, and I don't think they believe they are sacrificing Christ again
@@PennySmart I hope you're right! I've heard them say it's the actual blood and flesh, but I do love some of their ministries on YT.
Look at the doctrinal statement of Rosebroughs congregation. They believe it's the literal body and blood. They also affirm baptismal regeneration. Why does he get a pass with the reformed Baptist crowd?
@@LilacDaisy2Some Lutherans do believe it is the body and blood, some don’t. But I don’t know of any who believe they’re resacrificng Jesus as the papists do.
If you are a Confessional Lutheran you believe it is true Body and true Blood. If you dont believe thzt you are not Lutheran. Its in our confessions. We only go as far as scripture. There is no re-sacrifice, but true Body and Blood.@@AstroMonkey88
Figurative language not literal.
The first Protestants thought Jesus was speaking literally, when they walked away.
Then the whole Bible is figurative? Or, just the parts you want to disagree with? Jesus said it is his body and blood so I believe him.
Some videos need comments off. We dont need to have comments pointing people away from what you are explaining.
Yes, people should be allowed to see a false distorted Catholic teaching without having to read Catholics defending their beliefs. God forbid people get to see both sides.
@@IG88AAA lol, well said.
Tell em!
Keep in
Mind these same people believe they must follow the 10 commandments to ATTAIN salvation. Sad deal
Who are "these people"?
@@HearGodsWordpeople that believe false doctrine
@@EPH113 so who are you accusing? I'm having to try and be a mind reader here with you 🤷
@@HearGodsWord how do you ATTAIN salvation?
@@EPH113 answer the question.
Wow this is the best explanation I've ever heard on this subject.Listen up catholics and wakey wakey wakey
I am a Catholic and I heard misunderstandings and heretical view of Jesus's sacrifice. This video did not take into account the Mosaic command to eat the flesh of the lamb for israelites to be saved from the death just before they left egypt. In the same way the bread and wine, consecrated by Jesus in the last supper (and also consecrated by Him in every mass) become the spiritual foods of christians.
Wif you prefer a man made religion rather than what Jesus Christ himself established be my guess pal. At the end of the day we will al be Judge…
What part in particular shows the Catholic teaching is false?
I dare you to go to How To Be Christian--the most recent video is a bible study on John 6 with fun graphics. In case you want to even have an inkling of what the other side actually holds. Instead of this fake news.