New upload that fixed the freezing! Sorry for the inconvenience and enjoy 😄

The fact that this channel only has 11k subscribers is actually WILD. Amazing dive into the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist

Thank you for the thorough and thoughtful explanations Joe! It’s baffling to me that Protestants accuse us of not focusing on Jesus when that’s literally what we do at every Mass, which is offered daily.

Im converting from nondenom fundamentalists to Catholicism. This is a great video and the verses take on a whole new meaning when you think of them as the Eucharist.

"If you couldn't be confused with a cannibal then you're not eucharistic enough" - Ngl sounds pretty cool, I'll take it.

This was an amazing teaching. I feel so much stronger in my Faith after hearing this. Praise be to Jesus and His Holy Curch.

My mom believes that Jesus wasn't speaking literally because if he was he was breaking the Mosaic law. Not Catholic because I still live with my anti Catholic parents. I want to be prepared to face the whirlwind of anti Catholic hate when I do. These podcasts help a lot

I’ve always found it interesting that this teaching on the Eucharist is the very issue that it seems that caused Judas to stop believing in Jesus . Judas s stumbling block

As a nonChristian who is looking into Christianity, I agree with the presenter that this IS strange. As I have learned more, I recognize the polarization regarding this teaching. The Protestants I have spoken with insist that Jesus's words (i.e., eat my body and drink my blood) cannot be taken literally. I don't understand why they make this claim because Jesus' audience takes him literally. "The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (John 6:52) Whatever else may or may not be going on here, it seems irrefutable that Jesus spoke literally. The preceding verse provides additional evidence that Jesus was speaking literally. Jesus says, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." All the Christians I have interacted with so far believe Jesus meant that he intended to offer himself literally (not symbolically) on the cross.

@Shamelesspopery @Joe Heschmeyer thank you for all that your doing to teach us our Catholic faith and at the same time teach our separated brothers, GOD Bless your family and you.Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷

Joe thanks be to God and His Holy Blessed Mother that He has given us souls like you 🙏 I'm lucky enough to be born Catholic and I could never thank God enough for this blessing. To have the privilege of The Holy Eucharist my entire life blows my mind and I hope and pray that so many will have their hearts opened by your videos. There is no greater love than wanting our protestants brothers and sisters to have The Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour like we do ❤

This ties in really well with Brant Pitre's "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist."

Wait! What? The Holy Spirit and Jesus so abandoned the Church that it was corrupted in the first generation taught by the Apostles? If true, that would mean Jesus's promises are no good and therefore there is no reason to believe in them at all. And yet the people who profess that, claim to be Christian and claim Roman Catholics are not! Absolutely wild!

That was amazing! Thank you so much Joe, this really did put things into context. I love how weird our faith can be 😊

So grateful for such clear and intellectual honesty apologetics.

You know how you read the Bible and at the same time don’t take it in till it’s the right time? Thank you Lord for this teaching.

Hey Joel, I’m a 54-yr old, 21-yr Catholic and your podcast is one of the best. I wanted to see if you or someone you know has used Elisha’s bones as an apologetic for praying to saints? (Referring to when a murdered man’s corpse came in contact with Elisha’s bones and rose from the dead.) Seems like a very strong biblical example of heavenly intercession through the remains of a saint. Thoughts?

Such an elightening commentary! I was recently at an nondenom church where the preacher was ridiculing the importance of the eucharist WHILE THE CHURCH HAD THE "LORD'S SUPPER." I just don't understand how some Christians can't see how central this rite is.

Awesome video! Great points for sure. It goes without saying that to believe in what most evangelicals believe, you have to also believe that the church started about 450 years ago. What they believe about the Eucharist, salvation etc, didn’t come about until then.

We have the many Eucharistic miracles through the ages, some of which have been scientifically tested, which shows that Jesus continues to show us signs pointing us to the truth..

As always, incredible stuff, Joe. Poor brothers in Christ that dont beleive in the real presence. They must feel as those good disciples who left Jesus, not even asking him for an explanation. Here you have an outstanding, explanation, good brothers. ¿Can you ask for something clearer than this?

Joe, o seu conteúdo é muito bom. Você explica as coisas de forma clara e objetiva.

Excellent work, Joe!

Watching this video after coming back from mass today is perfect timing

Another great episode. I have been bingeing your podcasts while decorating my house for Christmas and each episode has been edifying and educational. Appreciated your theory about the juxtaposition between Judas’ betrayal of Jesus at the Passover beginning with his doubt about the Eucharist at the prior Passover.

God Bless

Thank you my brother for all your work on the truth!!

This is SO great! Thanks Joe! I thought I’d read/heard everything on John 6 but the connections to St Paul are fascinating. Definitely going to buy the book this is taken from.

Just what I needed thank you so much

Very good a lot to think about. I was never taught this way with such good details.

Great video, I wish I had watched it last week when I was talking to an evangelical. Oddly enough I used the same scriptures, he kept insisting that it's only a symbol whilst also claiming it nourishes us. Apart from pointing out the contradiction and that the nourishment can only happen if Christ's presence is actually in it, he also referred to when Jesus says to do this in memory of me, I had to draw upon the point that yes we do it in memory so as to call upon mental contemplation of preparing ourselves so we're fully aware of what we're receiving. Even quoting St Ignatius of Antioch he was quite dismissive. Unfortunately a horse can be led to water but it won't always drink.

Yes, I do believe Jesus. Praise him!

I am the bread of life…no one comes to the father but by me

Should Catholics really be labouring too hard on this argument this way? Isn’t it enough to emphasise the impossibility that the Holy Spirit misled everyone in the first 1500 years of Christianity? I think that’s the key because we do not believe because we’re super educated and intelligent but because God gave us the grace. What we should be doing more is praying for non Catholics and admonishing people on pride, arrogance and self righteousness which blind people understanding.

Amazing..❤

I was debating a Protestant online I brought up Jn 6. “My flesh is real food.” The Protestants answer to me was “Obviously he didn’t mean that.”

Sola scriptura is so funny if you hear St Paul say he received the “eucharistic teaching” by DIVINE REVELATION 😂 Yet St Paul is the biggest source for most protestants…

What is sad it is the scene from Jesus Christ Superstar that really convinced me. The words are so emphatic in the Bible it becomes obvious in the emotional scene from the movie .

I think this was my 3rd listen to this video :).As a slow learner lol, I finally realized 2 things. 1) Paul compares the partaking of the table of the body of Jesus to the table of demons and to the OT Jewish table. Both the Jewish and pagan tables were tables of 'sacrifice' from which the sacrificed victim was literally eaten after the sacrifice. 2) In all the other parables told by Jesus, his disciples do not question Him and they continued to follow Him. e.g. I am the true vine, the door, the true sheperd, the way, the truth and the life, the gate, etc. but, after the 'bread of life' discourse in John 6, many of His disciples questioned Him and found His words so disturbing that many of them turned away and followed Him. Of course, then there's Paul's statement that taking the body nd blood of Jesus, some drink damnation on themselves. It's a stretch to conclude that eating a 'symbol' unworthy would send someone to hell. None of the other symbols, the vine, the door, etc., we're ever said to bring damnation

is this a re-upload? the previous video had glitches.

I think that the stone-walled sheepfolds didn’t have actual ‘doors’. The shepherd would herd the flock into the fold for protection overnight, and then he himself would bed down in the opening in order to keep the sheep inside and lurking dangers outside. So in a deeply significant and emotionally touching sense the shepherd IS INDEED the door and we can understand quite literally what Jesus meant by saying that He was the door. “We move toward what we picture in our minds.” - Dale Carnegie

Regarding 1 Corinthians 11 Scripture often warns us that God's instructions are not to be taken lightly (Galatians 6:7; Hebrews 2:2-3; Deuteronomy 30:15). Even when the consequences of disobedience aren't immediate, they can be devastating (Romans 2:5). Here, Paul reveals the high stakes for those participating in the Lord's Supper in an "unworthy manner." The Corinthian Christians had been doing exactly that: using the Lord's Supper gathering as a freewheeling party of sorts, with the wealthy believers treating the poorer believers badly (1 Corinthians 11:17-22). Paul writes that blatant ungodliness while eating the bread and drinking the cup of the Lord's Supper will cause them to be guilty of sinning against the blood and body of Christ. In a sense, Paul is saying that the person who does this becomes liable for the Lord's death. Symbolically, communion is meant to commemorate the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross. Those who treat such an event as a party, or take it in a careless way, are not entirely unlike those who stood by and laughed while Jesus died (Matthew 27:38-44). Or the indifferent soldiers who pursued pleasure as He bled to death (John 19:23-24). Unlike those real-life bystanders, born-again Christians are supposed to know the meaning and importance of the crucifixion. To disrespect communion-the Lord's Supper-through selfishness or arrogance is not a small charge. The verses that follow show that such disrespect risks paying a heavy price. Copied from BibleRef.com

Great rundown any comments on John six versus 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…seems like Protestants confuse this often! Be blessed

Thank you for this teaching with all the scriptures you quote. Wonderful. I have a question: If we faithfully partack of the Eucharist and follow Christ's teachings, Do you think our bodies have to die?

I love your videos and watch them regurarly, however theres an issue. You should get bigger slides and a smaller version of yourself when reading passages, because the reverse breaks immersion and makes it really hard to read along.

Joe is the best catholic and eastern orthodox apologist of our time.

Good deep dive into probably the second most unpalatable catholic bit after the papacy.

If we faithfully partacke of the Eucharist and follow Christ's teachings [and it is well before the Resurrection] do you think our physical bodies can continue to live forever [even if it is hundreds of years before the Resurrection]?

I so much appreciate this in-depth teaching and> this has always been a struggle for me, specifically the "why" of it. Why did our Lord choose to become Bread and Wine for us to eat? I don't think I have heard a teaching on that aspect of it and I simply cannot understand why. If you have any insight, or your book covers that please let me know. Love your channel and look forward to each week's podcast. Thank you.

There are others, including Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, and Lutherans who believe that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Jesus and who would agree with the quotations from St Ignatius.

All Christians and the Body of Christ.

In the video, it was mentioned that Catholics were thought to be practicing cannibalism. My daughter just recently asked me why it's not cannibalism, can anyone help me answer that one?

After Mass I was puzzled by the reading it was Hebrews 9. When I came home I read it in total and I have a question. If this is one time sacrifice , why do we have to sacrifice Jesus on the alter each mass? I am not questioning just looking for clarity. Does the priest sacrifice Jesus again or does he bless the host to turn them into the body and blood of Jesus?

❤

So how is it that these scholars don’t come to the obvious Catholic understanding of the Eucharist? What or who is it that blinds them? Thanks for any thought on this…

I get confused about the difference between Paul and the other apostles or if there is a difference. When the 11 replaced Judas, they said it would need to be someone who was there to witness Christ’s entire ministry, death, and resurrection, right? So that makes it seem like apostleship is a really unique thing that couldn’t continue on through the ages, unique men with a unique experience and mission. But then Paul becomes an apostle through just a vision and he’s not a witness of the entire ministry of Jesus. I’m thinking about Mormons having a quorum of twelve apostles. None of them witnessed Christ’s ministry, so that seems like they can’t really be the new 12 apostles. That was a one time thing. But they could be like Paul if all it takes is a vision. I’d the idea of an ongoing 12 apostles an absurd idea or reasonable? I’m afraid I’m not asking a really clear question. But I would appreciate any thoughts.

Okay, let's see a 15-minute podcast about what Jesus was saying to Nicodemus in John 3:1-21... What was Jesus trying to explain to Nicodemus, when he was telling him that he must be born again? Keeping in mind, that at this point in time, only Jesus has been born again... What did Jesus mean when he said to Nicodemus you must be born again? What does the word "AGAIN" mean? "It should only take 5 minutes really not 15 minutes" But, anything over 15 minutes, would be gibberish...

So I’m 100% with you in your conclusion, but I’ve always found it weird that a Catholic will say, “how could gnaw mean anything else??!” When we literally have an equivalent phrase in English: “chew on it.”

What's the explanation of Jesus's follow-up with his disciples in John 6:60-63? If the flesh profits nothing, then why is physical communion more profitable than spiritual? Would this be the explanation from Jesus or the narrator you were talking about? I dont quite see that Jesus can't be speaking metaphorically (I'm open to enlightenment so don't take me wrong). Why can't Jesus be using stronger language to describe that we need to be consumed in him metaphorically? After all the people Jesus was dialoging with wernt coming with a mindset of surrender to or trust in Jesus but a self centered what can Jesus do for them mindset. Take an example of a person who goes to church receives communion then goes and plays golf afterwards( not saying it's wrong), and he isn't thinking Jesus, but bettering his course score ( obviously he cand do both but for sake of my thought he isn't thinking of Jesus but himself). On the other hand you have a person goes to church doesn't receive communion but goes to a jail to preach to inmates afterwards out of charity. The one person may have made a flesh act of communion, but the other is applying himself to try to perform work for man's spiritual edification. Is the man playing golf for himself more in communion with Christ still because of him physically taking communion? I'm not the best with anoloigies but I'm giving it a go.

Abides in me and I in him is the Holy Spirit in us. You have to stay in the light until death to attain it. If you fall in darkness repent and return. Those who don't go to hell. "I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.2He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes [1] so that it will be even more fruitful.3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.5"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you.8This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.9"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love.10If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love.11I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete.12My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.13Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.14You are my friends if you do what I command.15I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.16You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit--fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.17This is my command: Love each other. Jesus is the Vine and has the Father in him. The light of the Father connects us via our Holy Spirit. This allows us to talk directly to God (Jesus) and hear from him. We have to stay in the light and grow fruits of the Spirit and ask for Gifts of the Spirit. As we mature we do works and gain treasure for heaven. This whole walk is how we are judged in this life. Remember a person receives the Holy Spirit and Light immediately upon believing in Jesus as God and Messiah. This is the Baptism of the Spirit.

If one claims that the Eucharist is metaphoric, then one needs to read scripture. In Leviticus 6-11 in regards to to the portion of the food burnt for Yahweh "anyone who touches it, will become holy".

Take a look at this; the Eucharist was taken away from Adam and Eve @ Genesis 3:22 --> then restored to those who 'overcome' at Rev 2:7 % 17 !!!! God 'bookmarks' what's important in the whole of scripture by showing us the End (Rev 2:7&17) from the Beginning (Genesis 3:22 & Genesis 14:18) making scripture REAL, because only God can do this - Isaiah 46:10 " I make known the End from the Beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My purpose shall stand, And I will accomplish all My pleasure," !!!!!! The WHOLE of scripture becomes LIVING when viewed from the perspective of the Eucharist: Beginning to End!

Volume issue is fixed 📢. Grampa can hear ... next we deal with the cops.

Creation is all miracles what more miracles do you need?

So, no one with the Holy Spirit needs the Eucharist until they loose their Holy Spirit ( unrepentant sin). You have to have the rememberance.

John 6:53 So 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. John 6:54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; John 6:56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. The Institution of the Lord’s Supper Matthew 26:26-30 26 While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ 27 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.’ 30 When they had sung the hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. The Institution of the Lord’s Supper Mark 14:22-25 22 While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, ‘Take; this is my body.’ 23 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. 24 He said to them, ‘This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly I tell you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.’ The Institution of the Lord’s Supper Luke 22:14-23 14 When the hour came, he took his place at the table, and the apostles with him. 15 He said to them, ‘I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I tell you, I will not eat it[c] until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.’ 17 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, ‘Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.’ 19 Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ 20 And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.[d] 21 But see, the one who betrays me is with me, and his hand is on the table. 22 For the Son of Man is going as it has been determined, but woe to that one by whom he is betrayed!’ 23 Then they began to ask one another which one of them it could be who would do this. Abuses at the Lord’s Supper 1 Corinthians 11 17 Now in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, to begin with, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and to some extent I believe it. 19 Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine. 20 When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s supper. 21 For when the time comes to eat, each of you goes ahead with your own supper, and one goes hungry and another becomes drunk. 22 What! Do you not have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I commend you? In this matter I do not commend you! The Institution of the Lord’s Supper 23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for[g] you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ 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.’ 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Partaking of the Supper Unworthily 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink[h] without discerning the body,[i] eat and drink judgement against themselves. 30 For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.[j] 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined[k] so that we may not be condemned along with the world. 33 So then, my brothers and sisters, [l] when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If you are hungry, eat at home, so that when you come together, it will not be for your condemnation. About the other things I will give instructions when I come.

He also says to drink the cup he drank. That wasn’t literal.

When the host fall to the ground, does it hurt Jesus? What about if we chew him? And when does the host stop being Jesus when we swallow him? Why can’t anybody answer these questions?

Thank you so much for this video Joe! I already believe in the real presence, but this was a lot of other the biblical evidence that I was looking for to defend that belief. I have Protestant family members (All who were actually born Catholic and converted to church of Christ ) and one was trying to direct me away from Catholicism by having me talk to her Church of Christ pastor. While he was very knowledgeable, it was very frustrating to me because he wouldn't hear any of the evidence about eating the Eucharist, he just kept saying Jesus himself said to " do this in remembrance of me" so therefore it must be a symbol because you're doing in remembrance of him.... You're not doing it to rejuvenate yourself or to bring Jesus into your body and yourself into the body of Christ, or as an act of the new covenant. You are simply doing it to remember him as a token memorial. And he would not listen to any evidence because he said this is Jesus's actual command for taking communion. Undoubtedly his previous teachings were very serious, but the actual last supper does seem to be a little bit more light language wise. Why do you think this was?

It‘s interesting how Catholics think that Jesus was speaking in a literal fashion in John 6, yet they won‘t actually interpret this in a completely literal fashion. Because if Jesus meant he was the literal bread of life and his followers would have to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood, then why didn‘t this apply then and there? Put differently: Why didn‘t the disciples start chewing on him right on the spot?

So, we must have Jesus in us. The Holy Spirit is of Jesus and God the Father. God the Father and Jesus are one. The Holy Spirit in us is Jesus in us. By mouth and belief. Or Jesus says I stand at the door and knock any one that opened it and let's me in will have eternal life. Holy Spirit in us. Jesus told the church at laodicea. You are luke warm I will spit you out. Meaning if they don't repent and return to the light they will go to hell. Gnawing on the Flesh of Jesus ( Holy Spirit) is working to understand and gain Gifts of the Spirit and Fruits of the Spirit.

Unfathomably based……

The only one I don't agree with is Shocking. At the time, as a jew, would I find it shocking? Yeah probably. Today? I grew up with it; why would it be *shocking*?

Just devil’s advocate here. What do we say in response to a Protestant that suggests that we eat and drink judgement on ourselves if we fail to understand Christ’s point of his body and blood lecture. They might say that us Catholics are eating and drinking judgement on ourselves for not understanding the teaching Christ was trying to teach the disciples. They might argue that the whole thing was about consuming the the word of God (through him through his apostles) as being the body and blood of our Lord. How would we defend our beliefs then?

Hi Joe. I watch you on Catholic Answers now and then. I'm a Protestant. I'm just about a 5th of the way through and had a question about John 6:51 at the 8:35 mark. My interpretation is that Jesus is talking about his crucifixion here. Cannot that be the case? To believe that his sacrifice would save the world? Believing that Jesus is the Son of God, who died on the cross for our sins, and who was resurrected on the 3rd day is the beginning of receiving God's grace through faith, right? It seems to me that Jesus is setting this up to be a moment of faith for the world, much like Matthew 16:18 where Peter's profession of faith that Jesus is the Son of God would be the start of the global church. If it is about a glimpse of the Eucharist, verse 63 seems to mean that it isn't literally about his earthly flesh and blood, but rather a spiritual matter. As to your question to Protestants at 13:45, I would ask your thoughts on John 4:14. Jesus was speaking spiritually here about living water, yes? In Revelation 21:6, God tells the believers that He will let us drink from the spring of the water of life. So is it Jesus' blood that gives us life or the water of life from the spring? Aren't these all spiritual matters? Paul seems to tie in John 6 with 1 Corinthians 10 where he talks about the manna and drank from the well... "and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ." And, in Matthew 4, Jesus says, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God." The word of God also gives us life. Reading and following the truths within might literally extend our life on earth, but it is pretty clear Jesus is speaking spiritually again, right? Following Jesus and accepting his sacrifice bridges the gap between sinful man and our Holy God Most High. Revelation 7 says we won't hunger or thirst anymore and Jesus will guide us to springs of living water. As someone who believes in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, but not in the same way Catholics do, I too feel it is important to read early church fathers for their wisdom in such things. The elements do not physically become the flesh and blood of Christ once consecrated. They become the flesh and blood of Christ spiritually through the help of the Holy Spirit. First, let's look at what Irenaeus says from around 170 A.D. "But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity." Irenaeus had a high view of the Supper. The elements, when they are consecrated, become sacramentally (not literally) Christ’s body and blood. For Irenaeus, the Supper is the body and blood of Christ. It does not become the body and blood. By the way, there is no indication here that the body and blood of Christ is considered to be “in, with, and under” the elements nor a mere memorial or symbol. The transformation that takes place is not literal or substantial. It is consecration, the setting apart of the common for sacred use. That is not a small thing but neither is it a miracle. I've written a lot here. Sorry. So I'll close things up with the views of Clement. "And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord's immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both - of the water and of the Word - is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father's will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word." ---- Somewhere in the 1200 years between Christ's sacrifice, and the time when the transubstantiation pronouncements were made, the truth got lost. Sacraments are a spiritual matter. And the Holy Spirit, by faith, gives us the real presence. And let me, please, ask this final question. If the Eucharist was a physical matter and in truth, we are physically eating the flesh and blood of Christ, why do we grow and eat any other foods? His flesh and blood gives us life, yes? God bless you all. May Jesus, who is the way, the truth, and the life, lead us all to a more perfect understanding.

A quick google search will enlighten you..

@shamelesspopery You mentioned many verses in John 6. But I noticed you didn’t mention/address verse 63 which says “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” (New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)). Why is that? Why would you not mention that verse? Is it because Jesus himself said “the words I speak to you are spirit” which seems to imply that He was speaking figuratively, not literally, in the previous verses in which He says to eat his flesh and drink His blood. Would you please explain what you think the object and meaning of John 6:63 is?

The reaction of the crowd was due to the claim of being God.

How can u prove he multiply the fish and loaves and jesus floating on the lake. U cant so u take it literally,go through the writings over the centuries

To be partner with a demon it enters you were the Holy Spirit would go in a Christian.

Matt 26:26 " Now as they were eating, Jesus took BREAD, and blessed, and broke it, and gave IT(BREAD) to the disciples and said," Take, eat, this is my body". What was his body? It was the bread. Next it says, " And Jesus took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant.....I tell you I shall not drink again OF THIS FRUIT OF THE VINE.....". Jesus said drink the fruit of the vine, not his literal blood and Jesus told them to eat the BREAD, not his literal body. Mark 14:22 " And as they were eating, he took BREAD, and broke it and gave it(BREAD) to them, and said, Take this is my body....took a cup...this is my blood.....I shall not drink again of the FRUIT OF THE VINE....". Every Sunday I partake of the bread and the fruit of the vine

The narrative does NOT say that Jesus was "apparently" breaking the sabbath. No. The text says Jesus broke the sabbath and called Himself the Son of God making Himself equal with God. It doesn't say that they just thought He was breaking the sabbath. He didn't just appear to be breaking the sabbath. No. He broke the sabbath. John 5:18 - Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. If we're taking the scriptures at their word that Jesus said "This IS MY body" and "This IS MY blood" then let's continue in that vein and agree with the scripture that says, "Jesus broke the sabbath". Agreeing with the word of God is a challenge - a discipline. A disciple exercises discipline. "Discipline" is in the name "disciple".

Acts 2:41-47 King James Version 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.( there is no support here for “ Transubstantiation” notice the word “they “ whose the “they” the three thousand that were saved. And they followed the apostles “ doctrine” again no support for “ transubstantiation. Jesus told his apostles I had meat to eat that you no not of , my meat is to do the will of the Father. 1Cor. 10:3 3And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. Do this in remembrance of me.

Regarding 1 Corinthians 10:18, don't lose sight of the context. Paul is talking about a couple things. He's talking about eating meat sacrificed to idols. And speaking of eating sacrificed meat, those who attend at the altar of God in the temple, aren't they partaking of that altar? So, we know that those priests who are offering sacrifices to God are eating that meat, so are we too eating meat which has been sacrificed to an idol. This has nothing to do with Christians eating the bread and drinking the wine. It's clear from how Paul frames the teaching. 1 Cor. 10:18 - Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? Verse 18 switches gears from us, who eat the bread and drink the wine, to "Israel after the flesh". Are we Israel after the flesh? No way. So he's pulling from a worldly example to prove his point about eating meat sacrificed to idols and NOT to give credence to a Catholic theology of re-sacrificing Jesus on the altar again and again. In fact, that context appears NOWHERE in the New Testament and indeed violates the "once for all" doctrine taught in the Book of Hebrews. The mass breaks canon.

John 6:61 " But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, " Do you take offense at this? .....It is THE SPIRIT THAT GIVES LIFE, THE FLESH IS OF NO AVAIL, THE WORDS THAT I HAVE SPOKEN TO YOU ARE SPIRIT AND LIFE". Jesus tells them, "THE FLESH IS OF NO AVAIL", the bread is the word, the word of God is what gives life. Peter says in v68 " You have the WORDS OF ETERNAL LIFE". v45 " and they shall all be taught by God. Every one who has HEARD AND LEARNED FROM THE FATHER COMES TO ME". 1Cor 11:23 " the Lord Jesus on the night when 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 also the cup, after supper saying, "this CUP is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. FOR AS OFTEN AS YOU EAT THIS BREAD AND DRINK THE CUP, YOU PROCLAIM THE LORD'S DEATH UNTIL HE COMES". Whoever, therefore, eats the BREAD OR DRINKS THE CUP OF THE LORD in an unworthy manner...." The Churches of Christ partake of the Lord's supper every Sunday to proclaim the Lord's death until he comes, we partake of the bread and the fruit of the vine. We do not believe the bible teaches cannibalism.

In Calvin's defense, he actually did reject a false Ignatius. The Ignatian corpus of his time was made up of more than 7 letters, many of which were entirely inauthentic, and even the 7 genuine letters had large interpolations from another author. We call the versions of those letter "The long recension" of Ignatius' letters, which you can easily find today. The middle recension, which is what pretty much everyone agrees are the authentic versions of Ignatius' letters were not rediscovered until the 17th century, well after Calvin died. So, I don't think its fair to say he rejected Ignatius' letters merely because they were "too Catholic", but because they actually were, at least in part, inauthentic.

Oof! I agree with what the KZfaqr says about John 6. John's Jesus is BY FAR the most Christian Jesus. John 3 is obviously teaching about baptism and John 6 is obviously about the Lord's Supper. I agree with what the KZfaqr is saying but I certainly wouldn't start in John 6. We believe that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus because Jesus said, "This is my body" and "This is my blood." We ALWAYS start teaching with the clearest texts. John 6, as the KZfaqr points out, is not at all clear - although the KZfaqr's conclusions are 100% correct, regarding the interpretation of John 6. Very few churches of Christ believe that they are partaking of the body and blood of Jesus. I know this because I listen to them talk. If you want to know what somebody believes, listen to what he says. A person who is directing the congregation at the Lord's Supper will often say something to the effect that, "This bread REPRESENTS the body of Jesus", and "This fruit of the vine REPRESENTS the blood of Jesus". Now, where is the word "represents" written? The truth is, it's not. The churches of Christ kind of pride themselves in going by the bible but many congregations depart from the clear teaching about the bread and wine in favor of a tradition that has grown up in mainstream Protestantism. The traditions of men have TRUMPED the word of God. And as we know, Jesus was very angry with the religious leaders of His day who preferred tradition over God's commandments. We are saved by grace but only if we believe it. Nothing happens in the kingdom of God apart from faith. And, as it is written, "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." If what you believe about God is not clearly found in the word of God then you don't have faith; all you have is a fable. Are many of my brothers and sisters missing out on everlasting life? Yes. Why? Because Jesus said, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." And that's where you patch John 6 into your teaching. Save it for the end. If you're eating and drinking mere representations of His flesh and blood then you don't have a concrete promise to claim. My faith in what God says about _[fill-in-the-blank]_ is how I activate His promises in my life. This truth extends to my baptism and any other promise I hope to receive from God.

John 6:66... Isn't it interesting? The Beast whose number is 666 will lead many believers away. I myself, a cradle Catholic, was once very close to leaving the Church because of the teaching on Eucharist. As a child I've never thought about the seriousness of it, and the NO masses didn't make it too explicit. When I realized how crazy it actually was, I was lost. But then I prayed a lot for the Holy Spirit to lead me to the truth no matter what it might be, and soon after everything started to make sense - also thanks to the videos like this one!

The diciples did not believe this as also many of your church fathers. Do a read from John 3 into 6. 2 things tou'll find: 1. Jesus said if you believe on him you'll have eternal life which flies in the face of you mustveat his flesh & drink his blood. 2nd is if youvreadcthru you'll find him talking about water, living water, a water if you drink you'll never thirst, meat that if you eat you'll never hunger. He's talking about belief, faith, dwelling in him. What century did y'all bring in transubstantiation? 12th century, ok, ok

John 6 CANNOT be a metaphor to consume His Word as a necessity for Eternal Life. Please give me a moment to explain why. First, Jesus is talking about food that He will give sometime in the future (verse 27). He later explains the necessity of eating the food in order to attain Eternal Life. He also explains that to not eat it, you will have no life in you. If John 6 is to be understood as a metaphor for consuming His Word, it would follow that His previous Words would not be necessary for Eternal Life…only those Words that He will give in the future. We would then find ourselves struggling to figure out what those words were.

ADDRESSING THE ARGUMENT FROM JOHN 6 So "eat" can be a metaphor, but "gnaw" cannot? That´s completely illogical and can be used to literalize any detailed metaphor. For instance, Jesus spent almost an entire chapter of John on talking about sheep, sheepfolds, his role as a sheperd, wolves, the flock, etc. Using the logic in the video: "If he had just called his disciples sheep I could believe it´s a metaphor, but since he went into such in depth sheep language you must believe that they were transubstantiated into four-legged herbivores in that second." How nonsensical is that? Also, Jesus does clarify that it is a metaphor in John 6:62-63. First, he makes clear that flesh profits nothing and that the Spirit gives life. Thus, he clarifies that bodily consuming him would literally make no difference. Second, and more importantly, he tells them that he will bodily ascend into heaven, which for them would have meant that they will not literally eat him, as he cannot physically ascend after already being eaten.

ADDRESSING THE ARGUMENT FROM 1 CORINTHIANS 10-11 Here Paul does not call the Lord´s Supper an action of sacrificing as the clip wrongly claims. That has to be read into the text. The sacrifice is eaten AFTER the sacrifice has been offered. The sacrifice of Christ has been offered "ONCE AND FOR ALL" according to Hebrews 10. Now we eat based on the already offered sacrifice. But clearly that eating is not the same as that of the pagans, as the pagans ate literal physical meat. The parallel is that there is a meal which is based on the earlier sacrifice and which connects the participants to that sacrifice. Thus, Herschmeyer evidently is taking the parallel way too far. Also, in the video it is claimed that the Lord´s Supper cannot be symbolic because it is sinful to do it in the wrong way in 1Corinthians 10. But that is obviously wrong. If you spit on a memorial (which the Lord´s supper literally is according to Christ) or a flag that is clearly an offense against that which is represented by the memorial. In sum then, the arguments based on 1Corinthians 10 fall short based on simple logic.

The one teaching fundamentalists refuse to read literally. Hypocrites

Most protestants believe what Catholics believe about communion

Blood is the Light flowing through you. Giving you power.

"Eucharistic " simply means "worthy of thanksgiving". How do we eat the flesh of Jesus Christ? Did Jesus ask His followers to eat His literal flesh? By no means! Neither did He want His disciples drink His literal blood. How can I be so sure ? Because in 6:63 Jesus says, "It is the Slirit that who gives life ; the flesh profits nothing - - - - - the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life " It the Holy Spirit who gives spiritual life and that life comes through the words of Jesus Christ. Apostle Peter makes this very clear in his answer in verse 6:68 to the question "You do not want to go away also, do you? 6:68 "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. Eternal life comes through the Spirit of God through the hearing of the words of Jesus. Now look at the practice of the Apostles in doing the Lord's Table. They called it "Breaking of bread ". Acts. 2:42 /20:7. Now coming to Apostle Paul's teaching 1 Cor. Ch. 11; Start reading 1Cor. :11:18 & 33 and then go to 1 Cor. 16-17 : Discerning the body definitely means discerning the believers and treating them with dignity and love.

The very verses which St. Paul uses to make clear, that the Eucharist is not idolatry, the Protestants use to twist it. After all who is the loser, Paul or Protestants?

Okay, let's get down to it: The bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus. That is clearly taught 4-times in the New Testament. Protestants won't believe that. So what? My religion is not based on how popular a doctrine is with Protestants or Catholics. We are told that faith is what is used to activate the promises of God. Therefore, if you don't believe you're eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus then you're not going to collect the promised reward (i.e. life). Here's where Catholicism goes off the rails. There is MORE FAITH in the miracle of transubstantiation than there is in the bread being Jesus' body and the wine being His blood. Why do I say that? If you just take the unleavened bread, can you (or I) as a rank-and-file grunt eat that bread believing that it's Jesus body and it actually be his body? If you're a Catholic you have to answer, "No." Why is that? Because that bread only becomes the body of Jesus after it has undergone a "miracle". Can the rank-and-file grunt Christian perform this miracle? No. That's a job reserved for the clergy. Therefore, it's not the bred and wine (the elements) that are as important as the person by which those elements become the body and blood and more importantly the ecclesiastical structure the decrees, ordains, permits that miracle to take place. And if we're using the clear text of God's word to support our religion (as in, "This is my body" and "this is my blood") then where is this miracle enumerated? For example, speaking in tongues is listed and that, it seems to me, should pale in comparison to transubstantiation. Yet transubstantiation is not even hinted at nor is the transubstantiator. I'm right when I say: Christianity is for people (the grunts) Catholicism is for the clergy.

The Protestant and Roman Catholic views on the Eucharist are actually based on the same fundamental belief in ontological separation between God and creation (ie, original sin). They are two, albeit creative but nevertheless ultimately absurd, ways of dealing with passages of scripture that make no sense from that fundamental frame. The good news is that there is no separation between God and creation because Jesus Christ bridged the gap once for all, past, present, and future. That, friends, is that frame through which Jesus’ words at the last supper make sense. Blessing!

Why do we need the Eucharist for? Everything God wants us to know is in his book, the Holy Bible. The Bible is from God. The Eucharist is from the devil... Let the Catholics keep the Eucharist, and the Christians keep the Holy Bible. According to some podcasts about the Eucharist. The Priest is holding an image of the Sun in his hand in a moment of worship. The Sun and the Image of the Sun is idolatry which God Condems in Exodus 20:4. The priest during the Eucharist is worshipping the Sun...Sunday worshipping g is also worshipping the Sun. That's why Sunday is called Sunday... Read very carefully Ezikiel 8:12-18. Note V:16. What God is calling a great detestable thing.