Eat the Bread of Life and Not Die - John 6:50

[Mountainmike]

Your gospel is, the eucharist is the way to eternal life?

Romans 10:9-10

King James Version

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Why not believe scripture instead. Dont get me wrong, the eucharist is a valid sacrament. But it is not for salvation. Baptism in the other hand may be needed if you use it as your confesion of faith.

According to Jesus the Eucharist is needed! He says so if you want to be raised up at the last day.

In the end we are saved by grace. Neither our faith nor our works are Anywhere good enough to merit salvation .

Jesus gives many ordinances , of things you must do, as witness sheep and goats. I suggest that like the Eucharist you do them, because I don’t think you will win a theological argument with Him trying to explain why you think he should save you, despite you didn’t do what he asked!

Because elsewhere he explicitly tells you not all who call him Lord will be saved. He tells you many things are necessary. None of them are sufficient. You rely on His grace.

 

[Mountainmike]

Do we know the third secret?

Fascinating subject. Not the thread for it! What do you think?
I didn’t think non catholics showed an interest in it, but they should!

 

[fhansen]

The point of the passage is that we must partake of our Lord as a free gift of Himself; He must enter and indwell and nourish us for us to have life, and remain in us in a relationship which must be valued, nurtured, and sustained. And this is exactly what the Eucharist or sacrament of communion is said to be all about. And this understanding has been the continuous one in both the east and west since the beginning which is why the Lord’s supper is a central part of the regular gathering, and held in much reverence.

John chap 6 can be interpreted plausibly enough in more than one way but to view it any way not in line with the church’s historical experience is just a matter of guess-work. Christ’s words are spiritual.The Eucharist and His presence in it is a spiritual reality.

 

[Danthemailman]

Jesus is the Bread of Life. Just as bread nourishes our physical bodies, Jesus gives and sustains eternal life to all believers. John 6:35 - "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst."

Jesus explains the sense of the entire passage when He says in John 6:63 - "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."

Bread represents the "staff of life." Sustenance. That which essential to sustain life. Just as bread or sustenance is necessary to maintain physical life, Jesus is all the sustenance necessary for spiritual life.

 

[Guojing]

Watch the doubters jump around on this one:

Jesus made the clear distinction of not dying like the fathers in the wilderness.

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven,
that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

God's covenant with Israel was largely a physical one, they were promised financial prosperity, health, if they obey the covenant that God made with them. Abraham, Issac, Jacob, David and Solomon were all extremely rich for their time.

When Jesus came to Israel, he gave them a foretaste of how life would be in the promised kingdom, when he healed all who came to him, and even promised riches if they are willing to give up all to follow him.

At the end of the day, the physical blessings are to point to spiritual blessings for Israel. Jesus made that link clearest in Luke 6, after he fed the 5000 with physical food.

26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. 27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

So Jesus was trying to point out to Israel not to be just contented with seeking him for physical needs like food and such, but to believe that he is their Messiah and promised son of God. That is the spiritual blessing that await them.

However, as you can also see, Israel ultimately rejected Jesus as their promised Messiah. By the time they stoned Stephen, Israel has now fallen in the eyes of God (Romans 11:11)

As a result of that fall, we gentiles can now partake in their spiritual blessings. We are now declared righteous in our spirit thru the death burial and resurrection of Christ. (1 Cor 15:1-4)

 

[Mountainmike]

Nowhere else is the phrase “ bread” used of other than something you eat. It is not symbolic.

the word in ancient language translated as eat means “ gnaw” , not “ consume”

The crowd at capernaum were reviled and left because he did mean eat body and drink blood which was an anathema. Jesus didn’t call them back.

That is the problem with reformationists trying to reinterpret scripture without the history or context needed to interpret it.

This is not symbolic, it is the Eucharist it real Flesh as the first century disciples of apostles state clearly in writings. John knew what he meant and handed it on “ paradosis” tradition.

Jesus is the Bread of Life. Just as bread nourishes our physical bodies, Jesus gives and sustains eternal life to all believers. John 6:35 - "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst."

Jesus explains the sense of the entire passage when He says in John 6:63 - "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."

Bread represents the "staff of life." Sustenance. That which essential to sustain life. Just as bread or sustenance is necessary to maintain physical life, Jesus is all the sustenance necessary for spiritual life.

 

[The Liturgist]

Anyone think he was refering to the Lord's supper?

He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
— John 6:54

Indeed, obviously.

 

[GraceInChrist]

According to Jesus the Eucharist is needed! He says so if you want to be raised up at the last day.

In the end we are saved by grace. Neither our faith nor our works are Anywhere good enough to merit salvation .

Jesus gives many ordinances , of things you must do, as witness sheep and goats. I suggest that like the Eucharist you do them, because I don’t think you will win a theological argument with Him trying to explain why you think he should save you, despite you didn’t do what he asked!

Because elsewhere he explicitly tells you not all who call him Lord will be saved. He tells you many things are necessary. None of them are sufficient. You rely on His grace.

No, the bible is clear. You need to believe in your heart and confess with your mouth. The lord Jesus Christ is the word of God, and the words of the gospel has his spirit. When we accept the gospel by grace within our hearts and confess it. The holy ghost is within us, and the bread of life is living within ourselves. The kingdom of God doesnt come by eating or by obsevation, its within us. Repent and trust the gospel instead of mens doctrine.
If you refuse do to the will of the Father, you will hear depart from I never knew you.

Acts 16
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

If your theology was right, it would say. Eat from the bread of life that is the eucharist.

You are believing another gospel. One that doesnt have eternal life.

The eucharist also never had his blood. In the same way the bible doesnt have his flesh, or the gospel has skin. Those three are Jesus Christ, but none has his flesh and bones. The bread is given by faith when we accept him within our hearts. The eucharist is a celebration of his name and his victory. Not the way to salvation.

 

[fhansen]

No, the bible is clear. You need to believe in your heart and confess with your mouth. The lord Jesus Christ is the word of God, and the words of the gospel has his spirit. When we accept the gospel by grace within our hearts and confess it. The holy ghost is within us, and the bread of life is living within ourselves. The kingdom of God doesnt come by eating or by obsevation, its within us. Repent and trust the gospel instead of mens doctrine.
If you refuse do to the will of the Father, you will hear depart from I never knew you.

Acts 16
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

If your theology was right, it would say. Eat from the bread of life that is the eucharist.

You are believing another gospel. One that doesnt have eternal life.

The eucharist also never had his blood. In the same way the bible doesnt have his flesh, or the gospel has skin. Those three are Jesus Christ, but none has his flesh and bones. The bread is given by faith when we accept him within our hearts. The eucharist is a celebration of his name and his victory. Not the way to salvation.

The above is speculative. Jesus and the writers of the NT command many things in order to gain eternal life, even as all flows from the relationship with Him first entered into by faith. He says we must be baptized, that we must obey the commandments, that we must forgive others as God forgives us, that we must refrain from sin, putting to death the deeds of the flesh, that we must do good, that we must love, persevere, strive, be vigilant, remain in Him as He remains in us.

 

[GraceInChrist]

The above is speculative. Jesus and the writers of the NT command many things in order to gain eternal life, even as all flows from the relationship with Him first entered into by faith. He says we must be baptized, that we must obey the commandments, that we must forgive others as God forgives us, that we must refrain from sin, putting to death the deeds of the flesh, that we must do good, that we must love, persevere, strive, be vigilant, remain in Him as He remains in us.

No, Jesus first hand said. You need to believe in me. That is the will of the father.

John 6
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Later on, the lord Jesus Christ thought Paul the gospel.

Romans 4:4
“Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.”

Romans 11:6
“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.”

Ephesians 1
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Ephesians 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Galatians 4
21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

James never spoke about salvation. He was never given the ministry of grace in the first place. When he spoke about being justify it means in the eyes of men not God.

 

[fhansen]

No, Jesus first hand said. You need to believe in me. That is the will of the father.

John 6
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Later on, the lord Jesus Christ thought Paul the gospel.

Romans 4:4
“Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.”

Romans 11:6
“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.”

Ephesians 1
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Ephesians 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Galatians 4
21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

James never spoke about salvation. He was never given the ministry of grace in the first place. When he spoke about being justify it means in the eyes of men not God.

"Never given the ministry of grace"?? He was all about grace. He came due to grace and the love that underlies it. "When he spoke about being justify it means in the eyes of men not God"?? Who says? More speculation. And here's Paul speaking to believers:
"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." Rom 2:7

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live." Rom 8:12-13

The New Covenant has never been about removing from man the obligation to be righteous as if faith takes it's place or equates to it, but about finally giving him the real righteousness he was made for, only possible in partnership with God. That's the point, to separate oneself from God's authority as Adam did places us squarely in a state of disorder or injustice to begin with, and sin is inevitable. Man was made for communion with God, with whom all things are possible and apart from whom we can do nothing. He alone, can make us right, can justify us, as w enter communion with Him.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people." Jer 31:33

 

[GraceInChrist]

"Never given the ministry of grace"?? He was all about grace. He came due to grace and the love that underlies it. "When he spoke about being justify it means in the eyes of men not God"?? Who says? More speculation. And here's Paul speaking to believers:
"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." Rom 2:7

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live." Rom 8:12-13

The New Covenant has never been about removing from man the obligation to be righteous as if faith takes it's place or equates to it, but about finally giving him the real righteousness he was made for, only possible in partnership with God. That's the point, to separate oneself from God's authority as Adam did places us squarely in a state of disorder or injustice to begin with, and sin is inevitable. Man was made for communion with God, with whom all things are possible and apart from whom we can do nothing. He alone, can make us right, can justify us, as w enter communion with Him.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people." Jer 31:33

Romans 2
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

Have you obey the truth of trusting in his grace. Or have you disobey by adding your filthy rags you call work. You are holding the truth of God into unrighteousness.

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live." Rom 8:12-13

You are using sanctification passages to doubt his finish work on the cross. By your logic, there is no holy ghost seal within you. Or if it was, will God cast you into the lake with his spirit within you. Would God cast one of his sons to the lake of fire?

This are dangerous errors in your false doctrine. Are you save by faith and grace, or by works. Choose one.

The real gospel in which we trust says. You can live like the devil and still go to heaven. If you dont believe this you dont trust in his grace and finish work of the cross. And your works are counted as iniquity.

 

[Mountainmike]

No, the bible is clear. You need to believe in your heart and confess with your mouth.

Like most reformationists you accept one verse, and ditch the rest of the bible. YOU need to believe the rest of the bible, and the history and tradition that tells you what it means. It cannot mean what you want it to mean.

The bible tells you must do many things.
All of which are necessary for salvation, none of which are sufficient, but they are what our Lord asked us to do.
Such as the works referred in sheep and goats.

Not just easy believism. Even The devil believes Jesus is Lord and confesses it.

And you must take the eucharist of John 6:50++ and elsewhere. Which from the first disciples of the apostles, to the fathers at councils who chose your new testament and creed : all tell you is a eucharist of the real flesh.

The word bread is only used of food and the word eat is the word gnaw only ever used of flesh. It so revile Jesus' audience most of them left for good. The romans thought christians were cannibals, precisely because of what christians said they did behind closed doors!

To believe otherwise is to believe that everyone from the apostles ( paul says of the eucharist some are are sick and have died profaning it) , their disciples and all others got it wrong. You must also believe that our Lord did not have the power to keep his church on the rails having promised he would ' hell will not prevail against it' ' The gospel will be preached to the end of time (not with a 1500 year gap!)

The 'pillar and foundation of truth' is the physical church 'The household of God' Given the power to ' bind and loose doctrine'. It has spoken, the eucharist is the real flesh valid only if performed by bishop in succession , without which ' you have no life in you' with which ' you will be raised up at the last day'.

It is not a symbol. Indeed it is actually visible as heart myocardium showing cellular damage typical of severe beating in a number of eucharistic miracles analysed by forensic labs so intitmately entwined with the bread, it is impossible to forge. That is the verdict of the many forensic labs involved whose day job is criminology! Look at them, buenos aires, tixtla, sokolka, legnica, lanciano.. Look them up.

I was a protestant and evangelical once. I am with cardinal newman now ' to be deep in history ' is to cease to be protestant'.

One of the arguments that swayed me was how can those who claim symbolic eucharist who did not exist as a church pre reformation, be right when all others are wrong, particularly because they agree with each other so little on other doctrine, that they have schismed into of thousands of bits. None of whom agree with each other!

 

[GraceInChrist]

Like most reformationists you accept one verse, and ditch the rest of the bible. YOU need to believe the rest of the bible, and the history and tradition that tells you what it means. It cannot mean what you want it to mean.

The bible tells you must do many things.
Such as the works referred in sheep and goats.
Not just easy believism. Even The devil believes Jesus is Lord and confesses it.

And you must take the eucharist of John 6:50++ and elsewhere. Which from the first disciples of the apostles, to the fathers at councils who chose your new testament and creed : all tell you is a eucharist of the real flesh.

The word bread is only used of food and the word eat is the word gnaw only ever used of flesh. It so revile Jesus' audience most of them left for good. The romans thought christians were cannibals, precisely because of what christians said they did behind closed doors!

To believe otherwise is to believe that everyone from the apostles ( paul says of the eucharist some are are sick and have died profaning it) , their disciples and all others got it wrong. You must also believe that our Lord did not have the power to keep his church on the rails having promised he would ' hell will not prevail against it' ' The gospel will be preached to the end of time (not with a 1500 year gap!)

The 'pillar and foundation of truth' is the physical church 'The household of God' Given the power to ' bind and loose doctrine'. It has spoken, the eucharist is the real flesh valid only if performed by bishop in succession , without which ' you have no life in you' with which ' you will be raised up at the last day'.

It is not a symbol. Indeed it is actually visible as heart myocardium showing cellular damage typical of severe beating in a number of eucharistic miracles analysed by forensic labs so intitmately entwined with the bread, it is impossible to forge. That is the verdict of the many forensic labs involved whose day job is criminology! Look at them, buenos aires, tixtla, sokolka, legnica, lanciano.. Look them up.

I was a protestant and evangelical once. I am with cardinal newman now ' to be deep in history ' is to cease to be protestant'.

One of the arguments that swayed me was how can those who claim symbolic eucharist who did not exist as a church pre reformation, be right when all others are wrong, particularly because they agree with each other so little on other doctrine, that they have schismed into of thousands of bits. None of whom agree with each other!

you accept one verse, and ditch the rest of the bible
Is this irony

Such as the works referred in sheep and goats.
You do know this is a judgement of nations and not people. If you would actually read the whole bible you will know about the judgment seat of Christ and the white throne of God. One for the save into rewards, the other to the unsave to damnation.

Jhon 6:50
The will the father has for the flesh of the word is this.
John 4:34,
"Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work."

When you believe the word of God, his spirit and his word enter you heart. You have already partaken by faith in his finish work.

To believe otherwise is to believe that everyone from the apostles ( paul says of the eucharist some are are sick and have died profaning it) , their disciples and all others got it wrong. You must also believe that our Lord did not have the power to keep his church on the rails having promised he would ' hell will not prevail against it' ' The gospel will be preached to the end of time (not with a 1500 year gap!)

Free was the gospel Paul teaches. Free grace theology was always there. We were persecuted by your false church until the 15000 which is different. Satan is always looking to devour the gospel and change it with a lordship false gospel. Just as the judaizer did on Pauls time.

The 'pillar and foundation of truth' is the physical church 'The household of God' Given the power to ' bind and loose doctrine'. It has spoken, the eucharist is the real flesh valid only if performed by bishop in succession , without which ' you have no life in you' with which ' you will be raised up at the last day'.

Galatians 1:8-9

King James Version

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The antichrist will show many false miracles. Your Pope doesnt even teach salvation by Christ alone anymore. He is under a Zionist agenda. All popes always were.

I was a protestant and evangelical once. I am with cardinal newman now ' to be deep in history ' is to cease to be protestant'.

Is this irony or something?

One of the arguments that swayed me was how can those who claim symbolic eucharist who did not exist as a church pre reformation, be right when all others are wrong, particularly because they agree with each other so little on other doctrine, that they have schismed into of thousands of bits. None of whom agree with each other!

Free grace theology all agree the gospel is by faith and only faith. What are you talking about? Lordshippers are the ones who never agree.

 

[fhansen]

Have you obey the truth of trusting in his grace. Or have you disobey by adding your filthy rags you call work. You are holding the truth of God into unrighteousness.

I add nothing. By his grace we now achieve the righteousness that gains us eternal life.
"so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.. Rom 5:21

 

[GraceInChrist]

I add nothing. By his grace we now achieve the righteousness that gains us eternal life.
"so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.. Rom 5:21

Romans 3
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Yet you frontload works, making the grace no longer that but a debt.
Dont call grace what isnt grace. You call debt and lordship grace, which are not free or given without merit. You only want liscence to boast in front of the Father which is in heaven. Your works are filthy rags, and even at your best you live like the devil infront of our heavenly Father.

Sin can not reing in us, because Christ defeated sin on the cross. Not because of my merit but by grace for all the glory is to God. And his blood atonement has no limits. I dont frustrate the grace and love of God doubting him by looking at myself.

Romans 3
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

What part of freely dont you undestand. And which part I will lose none you dont understand. The bible is simple, nevertheless you mix verses because the love of the truth is not within your heart.

 

[Clare73]

Fascinating subject. Not the thread for it! What do you think?
I didn’t think non catholics showed an interest in it, but they should!

Well, I can't say I have an interest in it. . .but I'm feeling kinda' sure I know what it is. . .and it's not good.

 

[Butterball1]

Watch the doubters jump around on this one:

Jesus made the clear distinction of not dying like the fathers in the wilderness.

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven,
that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

John 6:35 "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh (present tense) to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth (present tense) on me shall never thirst.

John 6:58 "This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth (present tense) of this bread shall live for ever."

As long as one conditionally continues to 'cometh', 'believeth' and 'eateth' he shall never spiritually hunger, thirst nor die.

 

[Mountainmike]

you accept one verse, and ditch the rest of the bible
Is this irony

Such as the works referred in sheep and goats.
You do know this is a judgement of nations and not people. If you would actually read the whole bible you will know about the judgment seat of Christ and the white throne of God. One for the save into rewards, the other to the unsave to damnation.

Jhon 6:50
The will the father has for the flesh of the word is this.
John 4:34,
"Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work."

When you believe the word of God, his spirit and his word enter you heart. You have already partaken by faith in his finish work.

To believe otherwise is to believe that everyone from the apostles ( paul says of the eucharist some are are sick and have died profaning it) , their disciples and all others got it wrong. You must also believe that our Lord did not have the power to keep his church on the rails having promised he would ' hell will not prevail against it' ' The gospel will be preached to the end of time (not with a 1500 year gap!)

Free was the gospel Paul teaches. Free grace theology was always there. We were persecuted by your false church until the 15000 which is different. Satan is always looking to devour the gospel and change it with a lordship false gospel. Just as the judaizer did on Pauls time.

The 'pillar and foundation of truth' is the physical church 'The household of God' Given the power to ' bind and loose doctrine'. It has spoken, the eucharist is the real flesh valid only if performed by bishop in succession , without which ' you have no life in you' with which ' you will be raised up at the last day'.

Galatians 1:8-9

King James Version

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The antichrist will show many false miracles. Your Pope doesnt even teach salvation by Christ alone anymore. He is under a Zionist agenda. All popes always were.

I was a protestant and evangelical once. I am with cardinal newman now ' to be deep in history ' is to cease to be protestant'.

Is this irony or something?

One of the arguments that swayed me was how can those who claim symbolic eucharist who did not exist as a church pre reformation, be right when all others are wrong, particularly because they agree with each other so little on other doctrine, that they have schismed into of thousands of bits. None of whom agree with each other!

Free grace theology all agree the gospel is by faith and only faith. What are you talking about? Lordshippers are the ones who never agree.

 

[Butterball1]

Nowhere else is the phrase “ bread” used of other than something you eat. It is not symbolic.

the word in ancient language translated as eat means “ gnaw” , not “ consume”

The crowd at capernaum were reviled and left because he did mean eat body and drink blood which was an anathema. Jesus didn’t call them back.

That is the problem with reformationists trying to reinterpret scripture without the history or context needed to interpret it.

This is not symbolic, it is the Eucharist it real Flesh as the first century disciples of apostles state clearly in writings. John knew what he meant and handed it on “ paradosis” tradition.

Jesus did use symbolic language:

Matthew 26:27-29 "(27) And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; (28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (29) But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." Jesus first refers to the content of the cup as "blood" but at the same time and in the same context Jesus calls the content "fruit of the vine". The content of the cup did not change for it was always fruit of the vine.

Also, in verse 27 the word "cup" is used figuratively for the content of the cup, therefore not literally drink the cup itself but drink the content of the cup.
"And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;"
Clearly a metonymy is being employed, a figure of speech where one thing (cup) stands for another (contents of cup). The "fruit of the vine" is literally the "it" which is also the cup itself.

Luke 22:17 "And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:" Again, a figure of speech is employed for "it" is not the literal cup itself that was to be divided but the content of the cup. (divide - diamerizō - to cleave asunder, cut in pieces; to be divided into opposing parts cf Matthew 27:35). Therefore the language of John 6:54 can and would be equally symbolic.

Also:
John 6:52 "The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
Those Jews strove for they incorrectly understood the words of Christ literally as did those disciples John 6:60. If those disciples understood what Christ said as literally eating Christ's flesh and murmured about it, Jesus points out as to what would they do when He physically left them ascending above, John 6:61-62.

So Christ's words are not referring to the literal, actual physical presence of Christ's blood or flesh. Luke 22:18-19 instructs disciples to take literal bread and fruit of the vine and "this do in remembrance of me". In "remebrance of Me" means Christ would not always have a physical flesh and blood presence among the disciples, hence no literal flesh and blood present for them to eat or drink. So what would those disciples do who took 'eat His flesh" literally when Christ physically left them ascending above?

Comparing two verses:

John 6:54 "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
John 6:63 "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

V54 says eating His flesh gives eternal life yet v63 says Christ's words give life. Hence Jesus "words" are equivalent to his eating & drinking His flesh and blood. Therefore eating flesh & drinking blood of v54 cannot be taken literally. After the misunderstanding of literally eating flesh by the Jews (v52) and disciples (vs 60-61) Christ puts back in perspective for them what is meant by eating flesh, that being, "eating flesh" (v54) = eating His "words" (v63) not literally eating His flesh.

Summary:

--John 6:32-33 Jesus is the "bread" God sent from heaven.
--John 6:35 those who continue to come to Christ (the Bread) shall never hunger and those that continue to believe shall never thirst. (to "drink Jesus" is to believe His word, not literally drink Jesus or His blood, John 7:37-38).
--John 6:37-40 explains verse 35, those who "see" and "believe" may have everlasting life (never hunger or thirst)
How do men come to Christ, the Bread?
--John 6:44-45 by being taught, hearing and learning gives everlasting life.
--John 6:48 thus Jesus is the true bread.

The context is not about the Lord's Supper but the need to accept Jesus as the Bread God sent to the world, to "eat and drink" Him, that is, not literally eat and drink His flesh and blood but to believe His words to have eternal life. The whole context starts with v27 when Jesus tells them to work for the "meat" that endures unto everlasting life. Working for this "meat" refers to believing the words of Christ that He gives men and not literal meat to eat, not His literal flesh and blood to eat.

Final comment on John 6:54:

"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
The verbs 'eateth' and 'drinketh' are present tense verbs denoting an action occuring in real time on a continuing basis meaning Christ's disciples were to be "eating" flesh and "drinking" His blood at that moment in real time and continue to eat and drink His flesh and blood. But the disciples were not literally eating His flesh and blood at that time nor did they literally continue in a process to eat His flesh.

Again, as noted already, the "eating" and "drinking" results in having eternal life. Christ's "words" also results in life, verse 63. Therefore eating His flesh (figurative) is eqivalent to taking in, receiving His words (literal).

Those who continue to receive His words have life, it's NOT continue to literally eat His flesh have life.

John 6:56 those who eat Christ's flesh results in Christ abiding in them and they abiding in Christ. Parallel verse to John 6:56 is 1 John 3:24 where keeping Christ's commands likewise results in one abiding in Christ and Christ abiding in him just as in John 6:56.

Hence eating Christ's flesh is symbolic and equivalent to literally keeping Christ's commands (words).