Edited: Question on Catholic beliefs

Valetic

Addicted to CF
Site Supporter
Jun 1, 2018
821
539
31
Georgia, USA
✟58,296.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I don't think you guys get what I'm saying here.

1 Corinthians 11:25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

My question was if transubstantiation was where the bread and wine were miraculously transformed into human flesh and blood of Jesus.

I don't think anyone has ever eaten the literal flesh and drank the literal human blood of Jesus or ever will.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: NW82
Upvote 0

LoveofTruth

Christ builds His church from within us
Jun 29, 2015
6,463
1,758
✟170,684.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Well, firstly, we don't teach that Jesus is sacrificed over and over. Second, your question isn't specific to transubstantiation but the Real Presence in general.
- Didn't Jesus say at the supper that the cup was the new testament in his blood and the bread was also of the new testament?

- And doesn't it say in Hebrews that the testament is only in effect at the death of the testor?

- So does not this show that Jesus meant the supper to be FIGURATIVE, a type of the reality of His death on the cross and not the actual event or real substance?

Without the shedding of blood there is no remission and he hadn't died yet, So the supper was only a figure. The testament was not in effect until he ACTUALLY died on the cross. Or else they could have bypassed the actual cross and simply celebrated the broken bread and cup as his real body and blood

As scripture shows

"15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. 18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.... without shedding of blood is no remission."(Hebrews 9:15-18,22 KJV)

Matthew 26:28
"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."


Luke 22:20
Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

To me, this clarifies a few doctrinal issues that many have fought over for centuries.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bcbsr

Newbie
Mar 17, 2003
4,085
2,322
Visit site
✟201,496.00
Faith
Christian
I'm legitimately curious, so hopefully we can all keep a calm demeanor on this.

Given the below scriptures how does the Catholic teaching that Christ is sacrificed over and over again, through the eucharist according to the council of trent, become reconciled with scripture that clearly states Christ's sacrifice was for once and all time, being sufficient just once?

Please use scripture for responses. Thank you!

Hebrews 9:25-26
Hebrews 10:10-14
The following are quotes from a Catholic web site which states the Catholic position concerning the Mass.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/link/e-litur.html"The Sacrifice of the Mass is not merely an offering of praise and thanksgiving, or simply a memorial of the sacrifice on the Cross. It is a propitiatory sacrifice which is offered for the living and dead, for the remission of sins and punishment due to sin, as satisfaction for sin and for other necessities."

"whereas on Calvary, this sacrificial adoration was bloody, causing Christ's physical death by crucifixion, in the Mass the same Jesus is now sacrificing Himself in an unbloody manner because he is now glorified, immortal, and incapable of suffering or dying in His own physical person."

"in the Mass the same Jesus Christ who offered Himself on Calvary now offers Himself on the altar"

Or if you'd like more official statements by the Catholic church, the following are statements of the Council of Trent which met in the 1500's as a Catholic reaction against the Protestant reformation.TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS: "If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 1).

TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS: "If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 3).


CHAPTER II: THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS IS PROPITIATORY BOTH FOR THE LIVING AND THE DEAD

And inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner the same Christ who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, the holy council teaches that this is truly propitiatory and has this effect, that if we, contrite and penitent, with sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence, draw nigh to God, <we obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid.>[10] For, appeased by this sacrifice, the Lord grants the grace and gift of penitence and pardons even the gravest crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits of that bloody sacrifice, it is well understood, are received most abundantly through this unbloody one, so far is the latter from derogating in any way from the former. Wherefore, according to the tradition of the Apostles,[11] it is rightly offered not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those departed in Christ but not yet fully purified.

For more statements by the Council of Trent see http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/trent.htm
What Jesus intended by the Last Supper which later became communion, was a commemoration of his death, and not a sacrament. It's written in 1Cor 11:23-26 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said,"This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

The bread of communion, which Catholics refer to as the eucharist, has no inherent magical powers to do anything. Communion was supposed to be a meal eaten in the manner of the Last Supper commemorating Christ's death until he comes. But Catholicism has turned it into an occultic ritual, or a Levitical sacrifice in which the priest crucifies Christ each week and turns him into a piece of bread. And Catholics partake of it to get their share of Christ for that week. And then next week they'll crucify Christ all over again. (And if you attend a Catholic mass, listen carefully to the words of the priest when he's going through this ritual. For while the phrase has changed over time and from church to church, this is the exact phrase I learned growing up in my catholic church as I recall, "Accept this offering made by our hands to the praise and glory of your name" Yet it is written in Heb 6:6 "if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace." Yet week after week they crucify the Son of God all over again. Of Levitical priests it is written, "Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins." But of Christ it is written, "But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God." Heb 10:11,12 and "Unlike the other high priests, he (Christ) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, (or week after week) first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself." Heb 7:27
 
Upvote 0

tampasteve

Pray for peace in Israel
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Angels Team
CF Senior Ambassador
Site Supporter
May 15, 2017
25,699
7,407
Tampa
✟812,406.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

PERSONAL OPINION:

There are a myriad of threads on CF exploring and debating the Real Presence. Maybe we do not need to make this another one? The OP asked a specific question, which has been answered pretty well so far. Let us not debate the Real Presence, but stick to the OP of whether the RCC believes the sacrifice is over and over.​
 
Upvote 0

TuxAme

Quis ut Deus?
Site Supporter
Dec 16, 2017
2,422
3,264
Ohio
✟191,697.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Why dont we look at the words of Christ himself. Happily, someone already quoted the Bible verse ...

Didn't Jesus say:
“Take it and eat it; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and, after saying the thanksgiving, gave it to them, with the words: “Drink from it, all of you; for this is my covenant blood, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Exactly.

Is there anyone here who really believes that the Last Supper was the culmination of Christ's ministry ... i.e. that the Crucifixion and Resurrection were not necessary? Surely no-one advocates this.

Then dont you think that Jesus was speaking metaphorically - and spiritually - about his forthcoming crucifixion?

So if anyone - Protestant or Catholic - believes that Jesus is telling his disciples to be cannibals ... then I think that you have missed the whole point that Jesus was making.
Except that doing just as Jesus said- to eat His flesh and drink His blood- isn't cannibalism. The early Church had this accusation leveled against it, and Justin Martyr had to set the Romans straight.

The substance of the Eucharist is Jesus' body, blood, soul and divinity- but the accidents are bread and wine. He isn't received in a cannibalistic form.

As for the ancient interpretation, that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist- no, I don't (and no one should) believe that the first Christians got it wrong. I'm convinced that they knew a lot better than we do, twenty centuries separated from Christ. I'm grateful for the wisdom that they left behind, and their insight on the connections between the heavenly manna, the Passover and the Eucharist.
 
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Site Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,464
5,544
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟422,355.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I don't think you guys get what I'm saying here.

1 Corinthians 11:25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

My question was if transubstantiation was where the bread and wine were miraculously transformed into human flesh and blood of Jesus.

I don't think anyone has ever eaten the literal flesh and drank the literal human blood of Jesus or ever will.
ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων, Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι: τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε, εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.

The greek word is still anamnesis and what I posted previously still holds.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Archivist
Upvote 0

TuxAme

Quis ut Deus?
Site Supporter
Dec 16, 2017
2,422
3,264
Ohio
✟191,697.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
- Didn't Jesus say at the supper that the cup was the new testament in his blood and the bread was also of the new testament?

- And doesn't it say in Hebrews that the testament is only in effect at the death of the testor?

- So does not this show that Jesus meant the supper to be FIGURATIVE, a type of the reality of His death on the cross and not the actual event or real substance?

Without the shedding of blood there is no remission and he hadn't died yet, So the supper was only a figure. The testament was not in effect until he ACTUALLY died on the cross. Or else they could have bypassed the actual cross and simply celebrated the broken bread and cup as his real body and blood

As scripture shows

"15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. 18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.... without shedding of blood is no remission."(Hebrews 9:15-18,22 KJV)

Matthew 26:28
"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."


Luke 22:20
Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

To me, this clarifies a few doctrinal issues that many have fought over for centuries.
Firstly, He didn't say "testament", He said covenant. His words recall those of Moses at the base of Mount Sinai, when he sealed the Israelites in the blood of the covenant. When Jesus says these words, He is beginning the New Covenant.

This does not show what you claim it does- you go against the Scriptures and the first Christians in your conclusions.
 
Upvote 0

Ronald

Exhortations
Site Supporter
Jul 30, 2004
4,620
982
southern
✟111,578.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm legitimately curious, so hopefully we can all keep a calm demeanor on this.

Given the below scriptures how does the Catholic teaching that Christ is sacrificed over and over again, through the eucharist according to the council of trent, become reconciled with scripture that clearly states Christ's sacrifice was for once and all time, being sufficient just once?

Please use scripture for responses. Thank you!

Hebrews 9:25-26
Hebrews 10:10-14
I do not believe the bread and wine literally turn into the body and blood of Christ ... It has always tasted like bread and grape juice to me! Communion is done to remember (as Jesus said, do this in remembrance if Me). His sacrifice is to be remembered always. It is symbolic.
I would rather people believe in something more difficult than that, but real. That when God forgives us of our sins, that is when we are born again spiritually, we are transported back in time to that time of His death, when our sins were nailed to the cross. So we die and are raised with Him, then are transported back to the future, all in a moment's time.
 
Upvote 0

archer75

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 16, 2016
5,931
4,649
USA
✟256,152.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
So no need to be rude. If you read the thread I admitted being incorrect on the 2nd council, but thanks for your condescension. As the Catholic Catechism isn't biblical why would I read it?
If you want questions answered about RC teaching, it's a good place to start.

Also, the CCC refers to Scripture in many, many places.
 
Upvote 0

TuxAme

Quis ut Deus?
Site Supporter
Dec 16, 2017
2,422
3,264
Ohio
✟191,697.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
I do not believe the bread and wine literally turn into the body and blood of Christ ... It has always tasted like bread and grape juice to me! Communion is done to remember (as Jesus said, do this in remembrance if Me). His sacrifice is to be remembered always. It is symbolic.
I would rather people believe in something more difficult than that, but real. That when God forgives us of our sins, that is when we are born again spiritually, we are transported back in time to that time of His death, when our sins were nailed to the cross. So we die and are raised with Him, then are transported back to the future, all in a moment's time.
Jesus doesn't give us the option of taking Him "only symbolically".

Since no one answered my previous question, I will: Jesus' death was a sacrifice, and according to Jewish law, a sacrifice must be eaten. In particular, the Passover lamb had to be slain and eaten. As our Paschal victim, Jesus' offering of His body and blood as something to be consumed doesn't just make sense, it's a divine commandment. As His priests, the apostles were charged with offering this sacrifice perpetually, by uniting His faithful with that one perfect sacrifice on Calvary by taking us to Calvary.

Don't let the appearances or taste of the Eucharist fool you. It didn't fool His apostles.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Valetic

Addicted to CF
Site Supporter
Jun 1, 2018
821
539
31
Georgia, USA
✟58,296.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Jesus doesn't give us the option of taking Him "only symbolically".

Since no one answered my previous question, I will: Jesus' death was a sacrifice, and according to Jewish law, a sacrifice must be eaten. In particular, the Passover lamb had to be slain and eaten. As our Paschal victim, Jesus' offering of His body and blood as something to be consumed doesn't just make sense, it's a divine commandment. As His priests, the apostles were charged with offering this sacrifice perpetually, by uniting His faithful with that one perfect sacrifice on Calvary by taking us to Calvary.

Don't let the appearances or taste of the Eucharist fool you. It didn't fool His apostles.
I never thought of it that way o.o
 
Upvote 0

Landon Caeli

God is perfect - Nothing is an accident
Site Supporter
Jan 8, 2016
15,644
5,903
47
Silicon Valley
✟606,554.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Using the Bible alone, fine. But using the Bible alone and the random opinions of others, that is a recipe for disaster. Which is how you have missed understanding transubstantiation and of what the Catholic Church actually teaches. You got the opinion of some Catholic, and maybe you understood what they were saying, but they didn't get it.

I am not trying to be rude to you. I am being critical. So there is a pointedness to what I am posting. That is deliberate. But the goal is to clear things up a bit, not to silence you.

Here is what I think you are asking: Hebrews speaks of one sacrifice. Catholics speak of the mass as a sacrifice. Apparently as in a new sacrifice at each mass. How is that so?

To which I would say that it is one sacrifice made present as if we were really there. Just one sacrifice. Re-presented just like the Passover is re-memorialized, one event a long time ago but fresh for each person experiencing it as if for the first time. It is more than simply calling to mind what happened a long time ago. It is an outside of time thing. Jesus was not just Emmanuel a long time ago, but is Emmanuel now as well. But just one sacrifice, available for us in the here and now.

But that actually doesn't have much to do with transubstantiation. A separate issue really.

If you would dare to do opposition research by reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church you would have been able to see that. Such an approach would have been better for you than believing what your ex-wife's family opinion was. I get it that you want to follow the Bible alone, but in this case, if you want to figure out what the Catholic Church teaches, your ex-wife's family opinion isn't what matters. They might know the actual teaching here and there, but they might have led you astray a bit too, as in this case.

Here's how archbishop Fulton Sheen put it in 1938:

That seems like a sensible response. Afterall, we are all part of Christs Church. ONE BREAD ONE BODY, as they say. Throughout all times.
 
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't think you guys get what I'm saying here.

1 Corinthians 11:25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

My question was if transubstantiation was where the bread and wine were miraculously transformed into human flesh and blood of Jesus.

I don't think anyone has ever eaten the literal flesh and drank the literal human blood of Jesus or ever will.
What do you eat and drink then; is it just bread and wine with the remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice?
 
Upvote 0

NW82

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2017
831
533
42
Chicago, IL
✟80,336.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Libertarian
Jesus doesn't give us the option of taking Him "only symbolically".

Since no one answered my previous question, I will: Jesus' death was a sacrifice, and according to Jewish law, a sacrifice must be eaten. In particular, the Passover lamb had to be slain and eaten. As our Paschal victim, Jesus' offering of His body and blood as something to be consumed doesn't just make sense, it's a divine commandment. As His priests, the apostles were charged with offering this sacrifice perpetually, by uniting His faithful with that one perfect sacrifice on Calvary by taking us to Calvary.

Don't let the appearances or taste of the Eucharist fool you. It didn't fool His apostles.
If Christ fulfilled the law, Matthew 5:17-20, and all was completed at his death and resurrection, then does that necessarily hold true now? The blood sacrifices ceased because Christ fulfilled all that they were pointing toward. He was the final, unrepeatable sacrifice for sins. Hebrews 9:12, “He entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.”. The priesthood that stood between worshiper and God has ceased. Hebrews 7:23–24, “The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever.”. The physical temple has ceased to be the geographic center of worship. Now, Christ himself is the center of worship. He is the “place,” the “tent,” and the “temple” where we meet God. Therefore, Christianity has no geographic center, no Mecca, no Jerusalem. John 4:21, 23, “Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. . . . But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth.’” John 2:19, 21, “‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ . . . He [Jesus] was speaking about the temple of his body.” Matthew 18:20, “For where two or three are gathered in my [Jesus’s] name, there am I among them.”. The food laws that set Israel apart from the nations have been fulfilled and ended in Christ. Mark 7:18–19, “[Jesus] said to them, . . . ‘Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him?’ . . . (Thus he declared all foods clean.)”. The establishment of civil law on the basis of an ethnically rooted people, who are ruled directly by God, has ceased. The people of God are no longer a unified political body or an ethnic group or a nation-state, but are exiles and sojourners among all ethnic groups and all states. Therefore, God’s will for states is not taken directly from the Old Testament theocratic order, but should now be re-established from place to place and from time to time by means that correspond to God’s sovereign rule over all peoples, and that correspond to the fact that genuine obedience, rooted as it is in faith in Christ, cannot be coerced by law. The state is therefore grounded in God, but not expressive of God’s immediate rule. Romans 13:1, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” John 18:36, “My [Jesus’s] kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting.”.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I suppose.. I don't really know what else I would do with it..
When you read John 6:26-71 what do you think it is teaching?

John 6:26-71
[26] “In truth I tell you,”answered Jesus, “it is not because of the signs which you saw that you are looking for me, but because you had the bread to eat and were satisfied. [27] Work, not for the food that perishes, but for the food that lasts for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you; for on him the Father — God himself — has set the seal of his approval.”

[28] “How,” they asked, “are we to do the work that God wants us to do?”

[29] “The work that God wants you to do,”answered Jesus, “is to believe in him whom God sent as his messenger.”

[30] “What sign, then,” they asked, “are you giving, which we may see, and so believe you? What is the work that you are doing? [31] Our ancestors had the manna to eat in the desert; as scripture says — ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”

[32] “In truth I tell you,”replied Jesus, “Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but my Father does give you the true bread from heaven; [33] for the bread that God gives is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world.”

[34] “Master,” they exclaimed, “give us that bread always!”

[35] “I am the life-giving bread,”Jesus said to them; “whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never thirst again. [36] But, as I have said already, you have seen me, and yet you do not believe in me. [37] All those whom the Father gives me will come to me; and no one who comes to me will I ever turn away. [38] For I have come down from heaven, to do, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me; [39] and his will is this — that I should not lose one of all those whom he has given me, but should raise them up at the Last day. [40] For it is the will of my Father that everyone who sees the Son, and believes in him, should have immortal life; and I myself will raise him up at the Last day.”

[41] The people began murmuring against Jesus for saying — ‘I am the bread which came down from heaven.’ [42] “Is not this Jesus, Joseph’s son,” they asked, “whose father and mother we know? How is it that he now says that he has come down from heaven?”

[43] “Do not murmur among yourselves,”said Jesus in reply. [44] “No one can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draws him to me; and I will raise him up at the Last day. [45] It is said in the prophets — ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who is taught by the Father and learns from him comes to me. [46] Not that anyone has seen the Father, except him who is from God — he has seen the Father. [47] In truth I tell you, the person who believes in me has eternal life. [48] I am the life-giving bread. [49] Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, and yet died. [50] The bread that comes down from heaven is such that whoever eats of it will never die. [51] I am the living bread that has come down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, they will live for ever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

[52] They began disputing with one another: “How is it possible for this man to give us his flesh to eat?”

[53] “In truth I tell you,”answered Jesus, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you have not life within you. [54] Everyone who takes my flesh for their food, and drinks my blood, has eternal life; and I will raise them up at the Last day. [55] For my flesh is true food, and my blood true drink. [56] Everyone who takes my flesh for their food, and drinks my blood, remains united to me, and I to them. [57] As the living Father sent me as his messenger, and as I live because the Father lives, so the person who takes me for their food will live because I live. [58] That is the bread which has come down from heaven — not such as your ancestors ate, and yet died; the person who takes this bread for their food will live for ever.”

[59] All this Jesus said in a synagogue, when he was teaching in Capernaum. [60] On hearing it, many of his disciples said: “This is harsh doctrine! Who can bear to listen to it?” [61] But Jesus, aware that his disciples were murmuring about it, said to them: [62] “Is this a hindrance to you? What, then, if you should see the Son of Man ascending where he was before? [63] It is the Spirit that gives life; human strength achieves nothing. In the teaching that I have been giving you there is Spirit and there is life. [64] Yet there are some of you who do not believe in me.”For Jesus knew from the first who they were that did not believe in him, and who it was that would betray him; [65] and he added: “This is why I told you that no one can come to me, unless enabled by the Father.” [66] After this many of his disciples drew back, and did not go about with him any longer. [67] So Jesus said to the Twelve: “Do you also wish to leave me?” [68] But Simon Peter answered: “Master, to whom would we go? Eternal life is in your teaching; [69] and we have learned to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

[70] “Did not I myself choose you to be the Twelve?”replied Jesus; “and yet, even of you, one is playing the ‘devil’s’ part.” [71] He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who was about to betray him, though he was one of the Twelve.​
 
Upvote 0

Valetic

Addicted to CF
Site Supporter
Jun 1, 2018
821
539
31
Georgia, USA
✟58,296.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
When you read John 6:26-71 what do you think it is teaching?

John 6:26-71
[26] “In truth I tell you,”answered Jesus, “it is not because of the signs which you saw that you are looking for me, but because you had the bread to eat and were satisfied. [27] Work, not for the food that perishes, but for the food that lasts for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you; for on him the Father — God himself — has set the seal of his approval.”

[28] “How,” they asked, “are we to do the work that God wants us to do?”

[29] “The work that God wants you to do,”answered Jesus, “is to believe in him whom God sent as his messenger.”

[30] “What sign, then,” they asked, “are you giving, which we may see, and so believe you? What is the work that you are doing? [31] Our ancestors had the manna to eat in the desert; as scripture says — ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”

[32] “In truth I tell you,”replied Jesus, “Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but my Father does give you the true bread from heaven; [33] for the bread that God gives is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world.”

[34] “Master,” they exclaimed, “give us that bread always!”

[35] “I am the life-giving bread,”Jesus said to them; “whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never thirst again. [36] But, as I have said already, you have seen me, and yet you do not believe in me. [37] All those whom the Father gives me will come to me; and no one who comes to me will I ever turn away. [38] For I have come down from heaven, to do, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me; [39] and his will is this — that I should not lose one of all those whom he has given me, but should raise them up at the Last day. [40] For it is the will of my Father that everyone who sees the Son, and believes in him, should have immortal life; and I myself will raise him up at the Last day.”

[41] The people began murmuring against Jesus for saying — ‘I am the bread which came down from heaven.’ [42] “Is not this Jesus, Joseph’s son,” they asked, “whose father and mother we know? How is it that he now says that he has come down from heaven?”

[43] “Do not murmur among yourselves,”said Jesus in reply. [44] “No one can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draws him to me; and I will raise him up at the Last day. [45] It is said in the prophets — ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who is taught by the Father and learns from him comes to me. [46] Not that anyone has seen the Father, except him who is from God — he has seen the Father. [47] In truth I tell you, the person who believes in me has eternal life. [48] I am the life-giving bread. [49] Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, and yet died. [50] The bread that comes down from heaven is such that whoever eats of it will never die. [51] I am the living bread that has come down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, they will live for ever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

[52] They began disputing with one another: “How is it possible for this man to give us his flesh to eat?”

[53] “In truth I tell you,”answered Jesus, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you have not life within you. [54] Everyone who takes my flesh for their food, and drinks my blood, has eternal life; and I will raise them up at the Last day. [55] For my flesh is true food, and my blood true drink. [56] Everyone who takes my flesh for their food, and drinks my blood, remains united to me, and I to them. [57] As the living Father sent me as his messenger, and as I live because the Father lives, so the person who takes me for their food will live because I live. [58] That is the bread which has come down from heaven — not such as your ancestors ate, and yet died; the person who takes this bread for their food will live for ever.”

[59] All this Jesus said in a synagogue, when he was teaching in Capernaum. [60] On hearing it, many of his disciples said: “This is harsh doctrine! Who can bear to listen to it?” [61] But Jesus, aware that his disciples were murmuring about it, said to them: [62] “Is this a hindrance to you? What, then, if you should see the Son of Man ascending where he was before? [63] It is the Spirit that gives life; human strength achieves nothing. In the teaching that I have been giving you there is Spirit and there is life. [64] Yet there are some of you who do not believe in me.”For Jesus knew from the first who they were that did not believe in him, and who it was that would betray him; [65] and he added: “This is why I told you that no one can come to me, unless enabled by the Father.” [66] After this many of his disciples drew back, and did not go about with him any longer. [67] So Jesus said to the Twelve: “Do you also wish to leave me?” [68] But Simon Peter answered: “Master, to whom would we go? Eternal life is in your teaching; [69] and we have learned to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

[70] “Did not I myself choose you to be the Twelve?”replied Jesus; “and yet, even of you, one is playing the ‘devil’s’ part.” [71] He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who was about to betray him, though he was one of the Twelve.​

I don't know what answer you're looking for...

It honestly just makes me feel like God is in control.
 
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't know what answer you're looking for...

It honestly just makes me feel like God is in control.
Fair enough; but it says a lot about eating "my flesh" and drinking "my blood" what's that about?
 
Upvote 0

TuxAme

Quis ut Deus?
Site Supporter
Dec 16, 2017
2,422
3,264
Ohio
✟191,697.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
If Christ fulfilled the law, Matthew 5:17-20, and all was completed at his death and resurrection, then does that necessarily hold true now? The blood sacrifices ceased because Christ fulfilled all that they were pointing toward. He was the final, unrepeatable sacrifice for sins.
The animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant have come to an end due to the fulfillment of the Law. However, Jesus modeled His own sacrifice after those He had commanded Israel to offer, and He wants us to participate in this one, final, pure sacrifice. He has given us the means to do so through His Church, which He has gifted with a priesthood for this Covenant. This has been the understanding of this same Church since Pentecost.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant have come to an end due to the fulfillment of the Law. However, Jesus modeled His own sacrifice after those He had commanded Israel to offer, and He wants us to participate in this one, final, pure sacrifice. He has given us the means to do so through His Church, which He has gifted with a priesthood for this Covenant. This has been the understanding of this same Church since Pentecost.
You say that Jesus gifted the church with priests. Isn't the gift of priesthood for every christian. The scriptures say that Christians are a "holy priesthood" and "a nation of priests" but, if I have not misunderstood you, you imply that there is a kind of inner priesthood that is commissioned to do what the "holy priesthood" of Christians in general is not commissioned to do. Is that so and if it is what is your reason for saying it and is there any scripture that teaches it?
 
Upvote 0