What Does "Eat My Flesh" Mean? (PART II)

If you were raised Roman Catholic, that's what you were. Tau, you are actually eating the body. In now, that is not what Jesus meant. How do I know that? A long time ago, in a synagogue in Capernaum, my whole diet is Jesus. Bible me, part two, the Protestant strike back. It is not physical. It is an annoying time for side A. Although side B has absolutely no biblical support for their strictly metaphorical interpretation of "Eat My Flesh," Protestant pastors on side B will stop at nothing in their attempts to cram their own beliefs into the Bible. I don't think that they understood him to mean that it was physical. It clearly says that the bread is a symbol of Jesus' body. "This represents my body. This represents my blood." Evading the nonsense that side B was pulling with John 6:63, side A, led by the Bible, has established that Jesus began his teaching by telling people to work for "a food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give." And then Jesus revealed that "his flesh is a food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give." The evil Lord of Lies, obsessed with leading Christians astray, has dispatched several Protestant pastors on side B, equipped with poorly thought-out argumentation, into the far reaches of the internet. This is John 6. This is long before before Jesus gives that Last Supper where he breaks the bread and gives them the wine. This is long [Music] before.

Okay, well, I should put this away before somebody gets hurt. Call back. All right, so if you're here watching part two, then I'm assuming that you've seen part one. If you have not yet watched part one, then go watch it now. It is linked in the description and right up there in the card. Actually, right up there in the card. Anyway, this is Adab Christian. I'm Ferris, and as we say here, don't trust us, test us. It's a good idea to follow that rule when anyone is teaching you Christianity. Don't trust them, test them. Even the Bible says, "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." The Bible also says, "Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything. Hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil." So, yeah, when it comes to learning about how to be Christian, don't just trust, but test.

Now, if anybody sees a subscribe button lying around that looks like this, you can click on that. Not the one in the video, that's just going to pause the thing. But there should be one in the immediate vicinity so you can click that. Then the notification bell, then all. There's also a thumbs up button. You can click on that. And we do encourage you to share our content with your family and friends because we want everyone to know what the Bible says.

And now for a quick recap. So, in part one, we learned that Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." So, unless you do this, you have no life in you. Unless a person eats the flesh of the Son of Man and drinks his blood, they have no life in them. This teaching came from Jesus. So, if you're a Christian and you believe in Jesus, like everything about Jesus, then you have to believe this because this is what Jesus taught. "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

Now, what does it mean to eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood? Well, there's a debate going on about that. Side A believes that Jesus does want people to literally eat and literally drink his actual flesh and blood. On the other hand, side B believes that Jesus does not want people to literally eat and literally drink his actual flesh and blood. Now, if you read John's gospel in context, then you can easily see that Jesus started off his teaching in Capernaum by telling the people to work for "a food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give." And then, as he continued that teaching, he went on to reveal that "his flesh is a food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give." Again, this was just a recap. So please watch part one if you have not seen it yet.

But let's pick up on that note from part one. So, Jesus said to work for "the food that endures to eternal life, life which the Son of Man will give." And then he explained that "his flesh is a food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give." Now, since Jesus is saying "will give" here, that means that this is something that is going to happen in the future. Jesus will give this food. Jesus will give his flesh, which is food. So, this giving here is going to happen in the future from that time. So, we're right here on the timeline. This is when Jesus said it. So, any point after that, any point in this pink area here, it could be, could be 2 seconds from the time Jesus said it. It could be 5 months from the time Jesus said it. It could be 8 years from the time Jesus said it. At no point in John chapter 6 are we told when Jesus will give this food that endures to eternal life. At no point in John chapter 6 are we told when Jesus will give his flesh, which is food that endures to eternal life. But that's fine, because what we do know from John chapter 6 is that Jesus said he will give it. So, at this point here, when Jesus was in Capernaum, that's when he said he will give it. Which means that at any point in this pink area here, Jesus can give this food, and he'll be remaining true to his word. So, both side A and side B should be looking in this pink area here to find a time when Jesus gives people food, specifically food that he tells them to eat, and specifically food that could be his flesh.

So, is there any point in that time that you can think of where something like this happened? Matthew 26, Mark chapter 14, Luke chapter 22, and 1 Corinthians chapter 11, the Last Supper accounts. So, right here on the timeline, within the pink area, the Last Supper took place. Now, we're going to be reading four retellings of what happened that night. And as we read these, remember the Last Supper took place here on the timeline. So, this stuff from Capernaum that already happened. Which means when we get to here, when we get to the Last Supper, the disciples already know that Jesus said, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." The disciples already know that Jesus said, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats of this bread will live forever." And the disciples already know that Jesus said, "the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." They know he will give a food, food that endures to eternal life. They know he will give his flesh, which is a food that endures to eternal life. And they know that unless they eat Jesus's flesh, they have no life in them. They know that whoever feeds on Jesus's flesh has eternal life, abides in Jesus, and will live because of Jesus.

So, when we get to right here on the timeline, at the Last Supper, we've got the apostles at a table with Jesus, and they've heard this whole teaching from Capernaum. Now, "as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it, broke it, and gave it to the disciples." So, that's interesting. We're not even finished the first sentence here, and already we're checking off boxes. We got Jesus taking bread, and he's giving it to the disciples. Back in Capernaum, Jesus talked about a bread that he will give, and Jesus was saying this to his disciples. And what happened next? He gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." So, that's definitely noteworthy. He said, "Take, eat; this is my body." At Capernaum, Jesus said, "the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." And here, Jesus took bread, and he blessed it, and broke it, and when he gave it to his disciples, he tells them, "This is my body." And he also instructed them to eat it, which again, back in Capernaum, Jesus said, "whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me." So, that is one verse in this Last Supper account, and already there are so many comparisons here.

Let's just read through it. "As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it, broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he 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, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.'" So, that's Matthew's gospel. Let's go to Mark's gospel. "As they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, 'Take; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, 'This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.'"

So, Jesus claimed that the food that he was giving them to eat was his body. And Jesus claimed that the cup that he was giving them to drink was his blood. In Capernaum, Jesus said that the bread that he will give is his flesh. He said that his flesh is true food. And Jesus said that his blood is true drink. Back at the Last Supper, Jesus told them to eat what he had called his body. And Jesus told them to drink what he had called his blood. Again, this sounds a lot like Capernaum, where he's talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. And at the Last Supper, Jesus referred to his blood as his blood of the covenant. Now, what is a covenant? We've got some possible definitions here. A covenant could be a usually formal, solemn, and binding agreement; a written agreement or promise, usually under seal, between two or more parties, especially for the performance of some action. So, Jesus spoke of his blood as the blood of the covenant. And what is there that the disciples already know about that could classify as a covenant? Well, there's the covenant from from Capernaum, where Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him, as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father. So whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me."

Now let's go to Luke's gospel. "It says, 'When the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer."'" Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Passover. Hang on just a second. This is happening at Passover. "When the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, 'I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer, for I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.'" So, as we learned in part one, John the Baptist referred to Jesus as the Lamb of God. And as we can see here from this Last Supper account, they are at a Passover meal. In the book of Exodus, we read about the first Passover meal, and that first Passover meal involved eating the flesh of a lamb. So, here we are now at the Last Supper, a later Passover meal, and it involves eating what Jesus said is his body. In other words, the people are to eat the body of the Lamb of God. Now, both sides believe that the eating at the first Passover was physical eating, and both sides believe that the food at the first Passover was the actual body of a lamb. And also, both sides believe that the eating at this later Passover meal, the Last Supper, was physical eating. But when it comes to the food at that later Passover meal, side A is saying it is again the actual body of a lamb, the Lamb of God. But side B is saying, no, it's not the actual body of a lamb, the Lamb of God. It is only figuratively the body of a lamb, the Lamb of God. These right here, these are the facts. I'm not saying these facts prove anything. I'm just showing you the facts.

Back to Luke, though. "And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, 'Take this, and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.' And he took 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.' And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, 'This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed.' And they began to question one another, which of them it could be who was going to do this."

So, those are the gospel accounts of the Last Supper. Now, let's go to the account that Paul wrote in one of his letters. So, Paul here wrote a letter to the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours. Now, at one point in this letter, Paul writes, "In the following instructions I do not commend you because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and I believe it. For there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What? Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not."

So, Paul doesn't seem too thrilled here about certain things that he's heard are happening with the Corinthians. He heard that there were divisions among them. And as Paul said earlier in this letter, "there should be no divisions among them." He said, "I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and same judgment." Paul also pointed out that when the Corinthians come together, "it is not for the better but for the worse." And why is it that it's for the worse? Well, first off, because of the divisions. But also, Paul says, "when you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk." And he will not commend them for this. He says, "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that 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 he took 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 this 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 will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come."

So, according to the Bible, there is a right way and a wrong way to do the Lord's Supper. The Corinthians were doing it the wrong way, to the point where it was not the Lord's Supper. So, Paul's writing to them and telling them, "Hey, this is what I received from the Lord. This is what I deliver to you. This is what you should be doing." So, according to Paul, who received information from the Lord, at the Last Supper, Jesus did these actions, and Jesus said these words, and Jesus told people to do this in remembrance of me. So, there was something that Jesus wanted people to do in remembrance of him.

Now, both sides agree Jesus wanted people to do something in remembrance of him. But what was the something? What was this? Well, on side A, they believe that this is referring to something involving Jesus's actual body and his actual blood. But on side B, they believe that this is referring to something involving perishable bread and perishable wine. So, again, both sides agree that Jesus is telling people to do something in remembrance of him. But where they disagree is on what the something is. Keep that in mind.

Now, let's get back to this timeline here. We were looking for an event in this pink area where Jesus gave food. The Last Supper is an event in the pink area where Jesus gave food. And not only that, but much of what happened at the Last Supper matches what Jesus taught at Capernaum. So, what do you think? Let us know in the comments. Do you think that the teaching at Capernaum where Jesus said he will give food was about the Last Supper where Jesus did give food? Because side A does, but side B does not.

"I don't think that the Lord's Supper in John 6 are uh talking about the same thing, although they do have very similar elements. Clearly, Jesus is not talking about the Eucharist. We do not apply John 6 to the Lord's Supper. Side B cannot allow for the giving of this food to be the same as the giving of this food. Many people apply this to the Lord's Supper, and this doesn't have a thing to do with it. The Lord's Supper is blessed and marvelous and wonderful and very important, but John chapter 6 doesn't have a thing to do with the Lord's Supper. You cannot argue that John is trying to even allude to this future event. Yes, the Lord's Supper is very important. We do it. It's very important, but that's not it. In John chapter 6, we do not link John 6 with the institution or with the Lord's Supper. We understand them to be different things. John 6 is a metaphor, and the Lord's Supper is, you know, it's a sacrament. Obviously, there are there are many similar um elements in both, like that that's for sure."

So, that was James from side B, and he's saying that he doesn't think the Lord's Supper and John 6 are talking about the same thing, although they do have very similar elements. So, people on side B do acknowledge that these similarities exist, but still, they do not think that Jesus was talking about the Lord's Supper while he was in Capernaum. Here's what each side believes. Side A believes that while in Capernaum, Jesus taught people about physically eating and physically drinking. And side A believes that this teaching was referring to the physical eating and the physical drinking that would take place at the Last Supper. Side B, on the other hand, believes that while in Capernaum, Jesus taught people about figuratively eating and figuratively drinking. According to B, this was in no way about physical eating and physical drinking. It is not physical. So, side B says this teaching was definitely not about the physical eating and the physical drinking that took place at the Last Supper. So, yeah, that's why side B has to do what James is doing here. You got to say they're not talking about the same thing. Side B has to look at these facts and go, "Yeah, I know Jesus said he would give food, and then he gave food. And I know Jesus said that the bread is his flesh, and then he said that the bread he blessed was his body. And and I know Jesus taught people about feeding on him, and then he said to eat the food that he called his body. And I get it. Jesus said his blood was true drink, and then he told them to drink something that he said was his blood. I understand that there is a lot in common here. Now, am I saying there's literally no theological connection or comparison whatsoever? No, obviously not. Obviously, there's there's some overlap. Obviously, there are there are many similar um elements in both, like that that's for sure. I can't help but think of the Lord's Supper when I read those words." So, yeah, side B has to look at these facts and say, "Yeah, I get it, they have a lot in common, but the teaching from Capernaum was not about the Last Supper."

"But clearly, Jesus is not talking about the Eucharist because side B thinks that the eating and drinking that Jesus taught about in Capernaum was not physical eating and drinking." Now, that being said, there are some people on side B who still want to connect the teaching from Capernaum to the Last Supper.

"He's saying, 'You must eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood.' Side A goes on to say, and and you can imagine, you know, what the people are thinking. There's probably a lot of folks sitting there with their mouths hanging open. In fact, we're told in verse 52 that the Jews started disputing with one another, and they were saying things like, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' And so, there's you, there's a lot of obvious confusion here. But it is apparent that they are hearing him and interpreting his words in a physically literal sense, and that's one of the reasons why this bold figure of speech isn't making sense to them. It is not physical. You remember when Jesus went through this whole process once again at the Last Supper? Let me put it on the screen. It's from Matthew chapter 26. He says, 'Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it, broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."'"

So, that was Paul Louer from side B. I'm not sure if I pronounced your name correctly, but it is fun to say Louer. Anyway, notice what Paul is doing here. He's on side B, so obviously he can't say that the teaching in Capernaum was about the Last Supper, but he's still trying to create some kind of a link between Capernaum and the Last Supper. Here is Tanner Thetford, who is also discussing this theory from side B. "I love this third quote. You got to wrestle with this one in your mind for a second, but it's excellent. John 6 is not about the Lord's Supper, but the Lord's Supper is about John 6. Okay, wait and think about that for a second. Wait and think about it."

So, do you understand what side B is saying yet? Let's bring in Colin Brooks just to really clear this up. "John 6 is not about the Eucharist. It's not about the Mass. That cannot be what Jesus is talking about. Clearly, Jesus is not talking about the Eucharist. You cannot argue that John is trying to even allude to this future event."

"Now, am I saying there's literally no theological connection or comparison whatsoever? No, obviously not. They're both utilizing the same metaphors."

Okay, so this is what Paul, Tanner, and Colin are all talking about. They think that this teaching from Capernaum and the actions from the Last Supper utilize the same metaphor. Now, you may be thinking, "Wait a second, the eating and the drinking at the Last Supper were definitely physical eating and drinking." So, where is side B getting their metaphor from at the Last Supper? Well, that's the fun part. I like to share with you when we're doing communion, and after you've come up and gone to whatever table you're closest to, and you've gotten the elements, and you're holding them in your hand, and we're getting ready, I like to explain to you that those elements are a picture, a figurative picture. But what we do is we do something that's very intimate. We take them in. We literally ingest these elements. Now, there's nothing supernatural about the ingesting of the elements. It's the picture that they convey. It's simple. It's really not, you know, confusing or complex.

So, everyone on side B thinks that the teaching at Capernaum was about figuratively eating and figuratively drinking. And everyone on side B thinks that the actions at the Last Supper involved physically eating and physically drinking. But according to some people on side B, there is a teaching hidden within the physical actions of the Last Supper, and that hidden teaching matches the teaching from Capernaum. As Tanner quoted, "John 6 is not about the Lord's Supper, but the Lord's Supper is about John 6." "John 6 is not about the Lord's Supper, but the Lord's Supper is about John 6. They're both utilizing the same metaphors."

You remember when Jesus went through this whole process once again at the Last Supper? So, how is it that some of these people on side B think that Jesus went through the whole process once again at the Last Supper? Well, it kind of goes like this. Jesus was there with his disciples, and he's thinking to himself, "You know what? I'm going to use this as an opportunity to share that teaching from Capernaum again about eating my flesh figuratively and drinking my blood figuratively." But how do I do that? Do I just say it again? Maybe actually say "figuratively" this time so no one takes it literally? That's one option. I could do that. I'm aware of the future. So, I know if I don't do that, things are going to get real confusing for people.

"Roman Catholicism, I believe, has misunderstood this statement. In their attempt to be true to this passage, Roman Catholicism came up with the idea, you can look it up yourself, the bread and wine at the consecration becomes Christ's actual body and blood. So that, that is that is what Catholics uh believe and teach. Well, what, why, why do they believe that? Well, they're trying to be true to John chapter 6, where John said, 'Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you.' They're attempting to be true. And I, I, I give them credit, at least for attempting to be true to that passage. See, I guess I could just make sure that doesn't happen by saying 'figuratively,' or, you know what? Since I don't want them to think I mean physically eat or physically drink, it is not physical. I've got an idea. Here's what I'm going to to do. Hey guys, guys, look at this. You see this physical food here? This is my body. I want you to physically eat it. Also, eyes up here. You see this physical drink? This is my blood. I want you to physically drink it. Oh, make sure you all do this in remembrance of me. Physically do this. We literally ingest these elements. I want you to physically eat and physically drink a physical food and a physical drink, which I'm calling my body and my blood. And do you boys know why I want you to do all that physical stuff? Do you understand the teaching here? Do you get that I'm telling you to do all that physical stuff as a way to say figuratively, 'Eat my flesh and figuratively drink my blood,' but definitely don't physically eat my flesh and definitely don't physically drink my blood? You get that? You have to physically eat and physically drink the stuff I'm calling my body and my blood. You got to physically do that in remembrance of me, but that's just so you all remember the figurative teaching, the one where you don't have to physically eat or physically drink. So you do have to physically eat and physically drink, but only to remember that you don't have to physically eat and physically drink. Any questions? It's simple. It's really not, you know, confusing or complex."

Not in the least. Anyway, that's what these teachings from side B are about. They say, "John 6 is not about the Lord's Supper, but the Lord's Supper is about John 6." "We literally ingest these elements." The elements he's talking about literally ingesting are the physical bread and the physical wine, which is what both sides believe. They both believe they're eating a physical food and they're drinking a physical drink. But Paul teaches that the physical eating and the physical drinking is not special. Now, there's nothing supernatural about the ingesting of the elements. It's the picture that they convey. What's special, according to Mr. Louer, is the hidden figurative message. "Those elements are a picture, a figurative picture." Now, none of this "picture that they convey" stuff is actually taught in the Bible. And as mentioned before, only some people on side B are saying this. So, yeah, if you're on side B, you don't have to agree with Paul or Colin or this guy that Tanner is quoting. Of course, one thing that everyone on side B has to agree with is that the teaching in Capernaum was not about the Last Supper. Oh, and if any of you watching are even thinking about going into the comments and saying, "Hey, that's a corn tortilla. That's not a piece of bread," I'm telling you right now, I strictly forbid it. I don't want anyone making fun of us for a use of a moldy corn tortilla. That's mold, right? I'm pretty sure that's mold. It's what we have. Okay, we have a very limited bread budget here on the show, and we blew it all in part one. But if you want to add to the show's bread budget, feel free to support us at htbchristian.com. Thank you to everyone who's supporting us over there. You don't have to support us there, and actually, the best way to support us is just share the videos. It's free, and it's the best way to get the word out there.

"Do this in remembrance of me." All right, so as we looked at already, Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of me." What is this? Well, that depends on which side you ask. Side A thinks this is something Jesus did with his actual body and his actual blood. But side B thinks this is something Jesus did with perishable bread and perishable wine. So, when it comes to what this is, that's where the two sides disagree. But as for the statement itself, "Do this in remembrance of me," both sides agree completely, completely, that Jesus is telling people to do something in remembrance of him. The reason why this is important to keep in mind during this conversation is because certain people on side B like to point out this portion of the verse, the portion of the verse that both sides agree on, and they seem to think that somehow that helps their side.

"Let's see what the Bible says. 'This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' That's important. And in the same way, he took well, the grape juice after they had eaten, saying, 'This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.' What is communion? It is a remembrance meal. Jesus gives him a table and things to actually do this in remembrance of me. That's what we're told that that table is to do it in remembrance of Jesus. Jesus said, 'Whenever you do this, the Lord's Supper, the bread and the wine, do this in remembrance of me.' 'Do this in remembrance of me.' Those are the words he used when he talked about communion. 'Do this in what? Remembrance of me.' We are to do it in remembrance of him."

All right, so side B clearly knows that Jesus said, "in remembrance of me." That's great, guys. Again, side A agrees with that too. Now, why is side B going to that "in remembrance of me" part? Well, there's actually two different arguments from side B on this topic. One argument is completely illogical. The other argument is completely fictional. So, let's go to Evan here. He's got theic one. "There are entire denominations that fight over this communion, the Lord's Supper. Evan, here's a big word for you. See if you can spell it: transubstantiation. It literally means they take this passage of scripture and says, 'As we pray over the bread and the wine, and it becomes the body and blood of Jesus, because Jesus said you got to eat my flesh.' Dire denominations, you know, have. We're not one of them. Because as you read the scriptures, Paul and others, 1 Corinthians 11, says Jesus said, 'Whenever you do this, the Lord's Supper, the bread and the wine, do this in remembrance of me.'"

So, first of all, Evan used the word transubstantiation there, and he said that it literally means this. I just want you to know that's not what transubstantiation is. Transubstantiation has a definition. It's not this. It's this. But that's not really a big deal for this video because parts one and two have nothing to do with transubstantiation. In fact, you can watch all of part one and all of part two without knowing what transubstantiation is, because transubstantiation is a follow-up issue to this debate. This debate is not won or lost with transubstantiation. There are people on side A who believe in transubstantiation, and there are people on side A who do not believe in transubstantiation. On side B, I would guess that most people do not believe in transubstantiation, but hypothetically, you could have somebody on side B who believed in transubstantiation. So, yeah, this debate is not about transubstantiation, and we will talk about transubstantiation more in a future part. But yeah, I just wanted to clear that up real quick. This is not the actual definition, but not a big deal for this video.

The main thing to see here is that Evan does not believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood. And he says that his reason for not believing that is because Jesus said to do this in remembrance of him. "Dire denominations, you know, have. We're not one of them. Because as you read the scriptures, Paul and others, 1 Corinthians 11, says Jesus said, 'Whenever you do this, the Lord's Supper, the bread and the wine, do this in remembrance of me.'" Teachings, teachings, teachings afterwards, right? If Jesus was being literal, then that really is disgusting. That is completely illogical. He's saying he does not believe it's really Jesus's body because Jesus said to do this in remembrance of him, and that's the entire argument. There's nothing more to this.

Certain people on side B believe that if you say, "Do this in remembrance of me," then the activity that this is cannot involve your body. Does side B ever give a reason as to why it can't? No, they just say if you say, "Do this in remembrance of me," then whatever this is cannot involve your body. But let's say there's this guy named Rick, and sadly Rick passed away, but he left instructions for his funeral. Rick says, "Put me in a casket. Gather together with all my friends and family. Have a mass for me. I want my body there in the casket with all my family and friends in attendance. And one more thing, I want you to do this in remembrance of me." If we go by the same theological reasoning that Evan's using here, then because Rick said, "Do this in remembrance of me," this referring to these things here, these activities, cannot involve Rick's body. But they clearly do involve Rick's body. So, yeah, what Evan's doing doesn't make any sense.

Now, I hope that most people watching do not need to hear this, but just in case, "Do this in remembrance of me" does not mean "do this without my body actually present." If someone says, "Do this in remembrance of me," whatever this is can involve that person's actual body and actual blood. So, yeah, that's the illogical argument. Let's move on to the fictional one.

"Alan Parr, you're up. He took some bread and gave thanks to God for it. Then he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, 'This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in what? Remembrance of me.' This is supposed to be an act where you just simply commemorate or memorize or, excuse me, remember, if you will, uh, the sacrifice that Jesus provided for us on the cross. This is not the actual blood and body of Jesus." So, when he started there, Alan Parr actually did read the verse correctly out of the Bible, but then he went to talk about it, and somehow another word slipped in there. "This is supposed to be an act where you just simply commemorate or memorize or, excuse me, or remember, if you will." This word "simply" is being added to the Bible. And depending on who you're listening to from side B, they might put "only" in there, "merely" in there, basically any word that's synonymous with "only." Now, why are they doing this? Why is side B adding that word to the Bible? To figure that out, let's go to Mike Winger.

"Mass, which you might think of as communion, is different. In fact, in the Catholic Church, they say that the body and the blood of Christ are literally present in the cup and in the bread. This is at the center of Catholicism. This is the most important, probably of all of the sacraments, is Mass. It is constantly, constantly, constantly done. This, according to Catholicism, is necessary for salvation. You can't be saved without this. Now, notice this: this is not merely in remembrance. That's what Jesus said. 'Do this in remembrance of me.' Those are the words he used when he talked about communion. But this, this is Jesus. Like, this is actually Jesus. You're holding Jesus in your hands."

So, there's an example of why they drop the word "merely" into here. They'll say, "Look at this stuff that the Catholics believe. The Catholics aren't doing the meal merely in remembrance of Jesus. They do it to eat Jesus's body and drink his blood. They do it for salvation."

"Now, notice this: this is not merely in remembrance. That's what Jesus said." No, that's not what Jesus said. Mike, I'm looking at the Bible here. There's no "merely" in this verse. The verse says, "Do this in remembrance of me," not "only in remembrance of me," not "simply in remembrance of me," not "merely in remembrance of me," but "Do this in remembrance of me." Now, even if this verse did have the word "merely" in it, that wouldn't be a problem for side A, because there's two parts to what Jesus said here. He said, "Do this in remembrance of me." So, one part is a command to do an action, and the other part is a reason for doing that action. What Mike and Alan are doing is they're adding a word to the second part. They're putting a limit on the reasons for doing this, but they're not changing what this is. So, if the action here is eating Jesus's actual flesh and drinking his actual blood, then you could still do that only in remembrance of Jesus. And just to be clear, but one of the things that you could be remembering about Jesus is that thing he said about, 'Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.'"

So, yeah, that's the fictional argument. They add a word to the verse in an attempt to hurt side A, but their attempt failed because this is where the disagreement is. The disagreement is not this. It's this. Like, specifically this. "What is communion? It is a remembrance meal." That's correct, side B. It is a remembrance meal. Both sides agree with that. No one's got a problem with that. "Do this in remembrance of me." Yet, it doesn't matter how slow you say it. Jesus did say, "Do this in remembrance of me," and both sides agree with that. But the thing we got to figure out is what was this? This is where the debate's at. So, if everyone on side B could just focus on the portion of this verse where there's actually a disagreement, then that would be great.

[Laughter] What the heck was that? The "I am" statements in John's gospel. We can read some quotes from Jesus in which Jesus says, "I am this" or "I am that." Like back in John 6, we learned that Jesus said, "I am the bread." In other places in John's gospel, we can see Jesus said, "I am the light," "I am the door," "I am the Good Shepherd," "I am the way and the truth and the life," "I am the resurrection and the life," and "I am the vine." Now, side B tends to bring up the "I am" statements a lot in this debate. Let's look at it this way: Is there any one of the other seven "I ams" that we take literally? Jesus said, "I am the door." Oak, pine. What kind of door do we take that literal? But "I am the True Vine." Strawberry vine, grape vine. Have we taken that literal? Right. Uh, what are some of the other ones? Uh, "I am the light of the world." He is the sun. And we're back. Um, YouTube channel showed up today. It's like, you know how YouTube throws those things up on the right side of the screen? This channel is called "How to Be Christian," and it ought to be called "The Devil Teaches How to Be Christian" because it is a deceptive channel. That the person that's doing it makes claims to be a Bible-believing Christian, and he is not, unless you mean in a Roman Catholic sense. Now, all you got to do, guys, is open your Bible and find out what God really says. This channel is thinking biblically, and we're about the word of God.

"This is the bread that came down from heaven, that one may eat of and not die." He was probably gesturing to himself at that point because he said, "I am the bread of life. I am the living bread that has come down from heaven." He's not talking about the wafer and the wine. Just like Jesus saying, "I am the door." Well, he doesn't have two hinges and a knob or three hinges and a knob. Eating the bread of life, which is Jesus's flesh, uh, I think is an obvious metaphor. Now, let's look at John 8:12. He says, uh, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." Is Jesus literally identifying himself as like a light? Like he, he emits photons and, you know, if he's in a dark room, then you see everything because of it? No, he's not identifying himself literally as a light. He's, this is obviously a metaphor, and we don't need to, you know, get into like what it means and all that because this is sort of getting on a tangent. So, what's another example? He says, "I am the door." Is Jesus literally a door? Is he calling himself an actual door? Does Jesus have hinges, as you know, people often ask? No. Jesus is not literally identifying himself as a door. He's like a door. This is a metaphor, obviously. "I am the Good Shepherd." Was Jesus literally identifying himself as an actual shepherd? No, he's not. Because we're not actually sheep, first of all. Second of all, Jesus, before he began his public ministry, was not a shepherd. He was a carpenter, like his, uh, earthly father. "I am the True Vine." Is Jesus literally a vine? No, obviously he's not actually a vine. This is also a metaphor. So, these are all.

These are all metaphors. Jesus has a bunch, well at least four "I am" statements in John's gospel that are clearly metaphors. And in fact, let me just go back to John 10 for a second. Um, uh, he says in verse six here, literally says it explicitly, "This figure of speech Jesus used with them. It's a figure of speech." So John 10 is, is even explicit about it.

So as you can see, there SBE is great at quoting these "I am" statements. They said, "This one, and this one, and this one, and this one." Jesus said, "I am the door." "I am the door." "I am the door." "I am the Good Shepherd." "I am the True Vine." "I am the True Vine." SBE does an amazing job at quoting the "I am" statements. What they're not so great at, though, is, you know, talking about the rest of the conversation. Like, you see "I am the door" here, that's not even the beginning of the conversation. This beginning part of the conversation is very important to understanding why Jesus might say "I am the door." We don't need to, you know, get into like what it means and all that. Yeah, that's the thing. Side B rarely gets into what the "I am" statements mean and all that.

So let's do what these guys from Side B aren't doing and actually read the full passage from the Bible. In John chapter 10, we're told that Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. But he who enters by the door is the Shepherd of the sheep. To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all of his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers."

Now, this stuff that Jesus was saying about the door and the sheep, I'm pretty sure that was just a figure of speech, because the next line says, "This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them." So here is the beginning part of the conversation that none of these guys on SBE mentioned. Jesus started off by talking about a door. He was being figurative here. This was a figure of speech. The author of John's gospel tells us that. So Jesus was making a figure of speech about a door. He said, "He who enters by the door." But we're told that the people did not understand what he was saying to them.

So Jesus again said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture." So these guys all quote "I am the door" and they act like "I am the door" is the main thing that Jesus said, like he walked in front of a crowd and said, "Hey, I am the door. Door. Figure that out." But really, "I am the door" explains the figure of speech that Jesus used, and they didn't understand. See, "I am the door" looks a bit different when you read the passage like this, instead of like this. Or actually, in the case of James, he read the passage like this. James read part of verse nine and then he read part of verse six. John 10, verse nine, he says, "I am the door." He's like, "A door. This is a metaphor, obviously." In verse six here, it literally says it explicitly, "This figure of speech Jesus used with them. It's a figure of speech." So John 10 is, is even explicit about it. See, yeah, James here is saying that "I am the door" as a figure of speech, and he's saying that John 10 is explicit about it. But this part right here, where John 10 is being explicit about a figure of speech, that belongs up here, before "I am the door," and after the initial door metaphor. This right here, which John 10 explicitly calls a figure of speech, "I am the door" is never called a figure of speech.

That being said, SBE has no problem with "I am the door" being a figure of speech. In fact, SBE has no problem with "I am the bread" being a figure of speech. Not everyone on Side B seems to realize this, though. Let's look at it this way. Is there any one of the other seven "I ams" that we take literally? I don't know why it seems to be that this is the one we take literal.

So what is Evan saying here? He thinks that of the seven "I am" statements, SBE is treating one of them differently. So let's look at the seven in question. When it comes to "I am the bread," Evan and certain other people on Side B think that Side A takes that literally. And when it comes to these six other "I am" statements, Evan and certain other people on Side B think that Side A takes all of those figuratively.

Over on Twitter, someone shared this post with us. It's from an account called Indiana Bruner. Indiana writes, "Jesus, 'I am the light.' Rome silence. Jesus, 'I am the door.' Rome silence. Jesus, 'I am the Good Shepherd.' Rome silence. Jesus, 'I am the vine.' Rome silence. Jesus, 'I am the bread.' Rome, 'Take this literally or you'll go to this place we made up called Purgatory.'" I think I accurately captured the emotion there, but Indiana, you can let me know.

As for these arguments that Evan and Indiana are making, though, they show a great lack of education. These are arguments from people who have no idea what they're talking about. Nobody on Side A is saying that "I am the bread" has to be taken literally. For the SBE statements in question, if you're on SA, you don't have to take a stand as to whether or not they're literal or figurative. So for the rest of part two, let's just assume that all seven of these "I am" statements were meant figuratively and not at all literally, because something could be meant figuratively and literally at the same time. For instance, here we have the statement of Scott Wav. "The white flag." That could be meant figuratively, as in Scott surrendered. And at the same time, it could be meant literally, as in Scott physically waved an actual white flag. So yeah, we're not just going to assume they were meant figuratively, but also not at all literally.

Now let's make a table here to keep track of things. So Jesus used a certain term with people. In this case, that term was a door. And Jesus made a statement which utilized that term. He said, "He who enters by the door." As we know from the Bible, this was a figure of speech, and the people did not understand what Jesus was saying. However, Jesus does help to explain what he meant by saying, "I am the door."

Let's keep reading. Jesus goes on to say, "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a Shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the Good Shepherd. I know my own, and my own know me, just as the Father knows me, and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one Shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father."

All right, so again, we've got Jesus talking about something here. He's talking about a Good Shepherd. And Jesus made a statement about this Good Shepherd. He said, "The Good Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." Now, who's this Good Shepherd? Well, Jesus gave us a statement that answers that question. Jesus said, "I am the Good Shepherd."

Time to read some more. Jesus said, "I am the True Vine, and my Father is the vine dresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me, he is thrown away like a branch and withers, and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my Commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's Commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing. But I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another."

So we had the door, the Good Shepherd, and now we've got a few more things here. We have a vine, a vine dresser, and branches. Jesus made a statement involving some of those things. This particular statement actually looks like a simile, a simile being a figure of speech comparing two unlike things that is often introduced by "like" or "as." We can see in Jesus's statement here that he's using the word "as." "As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me." Now, with similes, it's usually very easy to figure out what are the two things being compared here. For instance, if someone says, "cheeks like roses," the two things being compared are cheeks and roses. In Jesus's simile here, clearly the branch is you, the person, and the vine is Jesus. So if you know how similes work, this is very easy to figure out. But also, Jesus explicitly said, "I am the vine; my Father is the vine dresser; you are the branches." So we know all the elements of the figure of speech, thanks to these statements that Jesus made. He's got an "I am" statement there, a "my Father is" statement, and a "you are" statement.

So let's get to John 6 now. We read all of this in part one. This is where Jesus is talking about a bread. So we can add that to the list of things Jesus talked about. Now let's get to some statements that Jesus made about that bread. He said, "The bread of God is he who comes down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, the bread that I will give, and whoever feeds on this bread will live forever." Now, did Jesus drop any hints as to what this bread was? Oh, that's right. He said, "I am the bread of life." "I am the bread that came down from heaven." "I am the bread of life." "I am the living bread that came down from heaven." So Jesus is the bread. He said so multiple times.

So let's take this table here and answer a few fill-in-the-blanks. What we're going to be doing is we're going to be taking these statements here and then we're going to use the "I am" statements to figure out what these statements mean without using these words. So let's make our way to the door. Jesus said, "He who enters by the door." So we've got, "He who enters by the door." We're going to get rid of the door, and now we just have, "He who enters by blank." So what could we fill in that blank with? I mean, it used to be the door. That's what it used to say. And if we go here to the "I am" statements, Jesus said, "I am the door." Oh, those are the two words that we just got out of here. So if Jesus is the door, then we should be able to fill in the blank here with Jesus. And now it says, "He who enters by Jesus." Is that okay to do? Can we swap out the door for Jesus? Well, if we look at the full passage here, that's exactly what Jesus did. He started off by saying, "He who enters by the door." This was a figure of speech. The people did not understand it. And Jesus went on to explain, "I am the door. If anyone enters by me." So Jesus went from saying "enters by the door" to "enters by me." So our fill-in-the-blank answer here is exactly what Jesus taught.

Let's try another one. Jesus said, "The Good Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." So let's take the Good Shepherd out of here, and we're left with, "blank lays down his life for the sheep." Going back to the chart, we see Jesus said, "I am the Good Shepherd." So since the blank used to be the Good Shepherd, we should be able to fill in that blank with Jesus. So now we have, "Jesus lays down his life for the sheep." And how about that? If you go to the passage, Jesus even says, "I lay down my life for the sheep." So he filled in the blank correctly again.

Let's go to the next one. Jesus said, "The branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine." So remember, we're trying to say this same exact thing without using any of these words. So let's throw away those branches and pull out that vine, and now we have, "blank cannot bear fruit by blank unless blank abides in blank." Oh, four blanks. We're definitely stepping up our game here. So let's get back to the table. According to Jesus, the branches were people. Now, three of these blanks we're talking about a branch. So let's fill in those blanks. And now we can say, "A person cannot bear fruit by themself unless that person abides in blank." Now, that last blank, that used to say "the vine." And according to the Bible, Jesus said, "I am the vine." So I'm pretty sure that last blank is Jesus. Which means, "A person cannot bear fruit by themself unless that person abides in Jesus." Which is again, something that Jesus himself taught. He said, "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me."

Now let's get some bread. Jesus made a bunch of statements about the bread. "The bread of God is he who comes down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, the bread that I will give, whoever feeds on this bread will live forever." Let's get rid of the bread, and now we have, "blank of God is he who comes down from heaven. If anyone eats of blank, blank that I will give, and whoever feeds on blank will live forever." So, you know the drill. These used to say "the bread." So let's go back to the chart. And hey, look. Jesus said, "I am the bread." So we can fill in all the blanks with Jesus. Meaning that, "Jesus of God is he who comes down from heaven. And if anyone eats of Jesus, Jesus that I will give, and whoever feeds on Jesus will live forever." So let's go ahead and check our work again. Jesus talks about the Father who sent him, meaning God sent him, which means he's of God. Even Simon Peter says, "Lord, we have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God." So Jesus is of God, and he did say, "I have come down from heaven." So we got that one right. Jesus said, "Whoever feeds on my flesh." Whoever feeds on me. That all matches with, "If anyone eats of Jesus." Next up, "Jesus that I will give." Jesus said, "The bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." So Jesus is saying that he will give his flesh. And just like my flesh is a part of me, Jesus's flesh is a part of him. So what Jesus will give is Jesus. In other words, "Jesus that I will give." Now let's check out this last one here. Jesus said, "Whoever feeds on this bread, he will live forever." But we were getting rid of the bread, we had a blank there. So we filled it in with Jesus because he said, "I am the bread." So it should be okay to say, "Whoever feeds on Jesus will live forever." And how about that? Jesus said, "Whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me." So that was fun.

Now we have this table here that talks about things that Jesus talked about, statements that Jesus said involving those things, and then statements that Jesus made to help understand what these other statements are talking about. So let's add another row here to see how Jesus said these statements without using these words. So this row is basically the fill-in-the-blanks that we just did. And now let's add one more row, the row for "what happened next." And we'll start filling that in from the bread column. So this is the column where Jesus talked about eating bread. This is the column where Jesus said he is the bread. And this is the column where Jesus talked about feeding on him. So let's go ahead and ask the question, "What happened next?" Well, Jesus took bread, blessed it, and said, "Take, eat. This is my body." So yeah, that's what happened next in regards to bread.

Let's look at these other columns. What happened next in regards to the door, or the Good Shepherd, or the vine? Well, I could tell you this: it's nothing like what happened with the bread. The Bible never records any event in which Jesus walked up to a door, blessed it, and said, "Enter by this. This is my body." Nor does the Bible record any event in which Jesus introduces the apostles to a Good Shepherd, blesses him, and says, "This guy's going to lay down his life for you. This is my body." And also, the Bible never records any event in which Jesus grabbed a vine, blessed it, and said, "Abide in this. This is my body." The bread is the only one where Jesus takes the thing he's talking about, the bread, blesses it, and says, "Take, eat. This is my body." So yeah, now that we have all those facts right here in chart form, let's take a listen again to what SBE is saying.

"Let's look at it this way. Is there any one of the other seven 'I ams' that we take literally? Jesus said, 'I am the door.' Oak door? Pine? What kind of door do we take that literal? But 'I am the True Vine.' Strawberry vine? Grape vine? Have we taken that literal? Right. Uh, what are some of the other ones there? Uh, 'I am the light of the world.' He is the Son. And maybe that's how some people tend to worship everything. But these are picture words that he used. I don't know why it seems to be that this is the one we take literal."

So Evan is asking, "Is there any one of the other seven 'I am' statements that we take literally?" And he's saying, "I don't know why it seems to be that this is the one we take literally." So Evan thinks that of these seven "I am" statements, Side A is treating "I am the bread" differently from all the other ones. If you look at the chart here, you can easily see that's not the case. When you're on Side A, you can treat all these statements the same. You don't have to know if they're literal or figurative. As already mentioned, for this video, we're just going to assume that they're all figurative and not at all literal. And that still leaves us with a bunch of "I am" statements which explain these other statements which were made about these different terms. With the "I am" statements, we can learn that people enter by Jesus, Jesus will lay down his life, people should abide in Jesus, people can eat Jesus. With Side A, you can have consistency with all these "I am" statements.

So what Evan has here is a misunderstanding of Side A. In fact, all of these guys on Side B seem to misunderstand what Side A is saying. Notice how they're talking about oak doors and pine doors and doorknobs and hinges and strawberry vines and grape vines and carpenters and photons and the sun. That's because these guys on Side B think that the people on Side A hear "I am the bread" and just based on that alone say, "Okay, I guess Jesus is a physical piece of bread." That's not at all what Side A is doing. But that's what these guys on Side B are assuming that Side A is doing, which is why they're talking about all this other stuff. Because if anyone actually was doing this, then it would make sense to say, "Well, if you think 'I am the bread' means he's a physical piece of bread, then shouldn't you think 'I am the door' means he's a physical door?" And the same for the Good Shepherd and the vine and the light. So that's where this talk of oak, pine, strawberry, grape, knobs, hinges, photons, sun, and carpenters is coming in. But when you actually look at this chart and you understand what Side A is saying, then all of this talk is completely irrelevant. We don't need to figure out if he's an oak door or a pine door because nothing in the Bible says that Jesus took a physical door and said, "This is my body." We don't need to explain that he was a carpenter and not a Shepherd because nothing in the Bible says that Jesus took a physical Shepherd and said, "Hey, this is my body." We don't need to talk about strawberry vines and grape vines because again, we have no record in the Bible of Jesus taking a physical vine and saying, "This is my body." And the same goes for the photons in the sun because Jesus never took the sun and said, "Hey guys, check this out. Okay, look at that. Yeah, this is my body. Okay, now you don't have to walk in darkness anymore." And, "Oh no, you're all dead. Probably 'cause this is a flaming hot ball of plasma. That's my bad. All right, there's a reason my dad put this 93 million miles away. Okay, who needs some aloe?"

So yeah, that's why we don't have to talk about any of these physical things. On the contrary, the reason we should be talking about physical bread in this conversation is because Jesus took physical bread, blessed it, and said, "Take, eat. This is my body." So yeah, if you want this chart to print out and use it in your conversations with Side B, it is available for free at htbchristian.com. But yeah, when Side B makes these arguments, it just shows that they're not paying attention to what Side A is actually saying. CA can treat all the "I am" statements in the exact same way. And when CA does that, they, you can take these statements, remove these words, and get these teachings, which are the teachings that Jesus himself taught. So the reason Side A believes we have to feed on Jesus is because Jesus talked about feeding on him, and then to top it all off, he took bread, blessed it, and said, "Take, eat. This is my body."

And speaking of, "This is my body," "This is my body," "This is my blood." Now, when it comes to the Last Supper, both Side A and Side B believe that there was a physical food present, and they also believe that there was a physical drink present. Now, in all four accounts that the Bible has of the Last Supper, Jesus is quoted as taking the food and saying, "This is my body." "This is my body." "This is my body." "This is my body." "This is my body." Every single account, that's what it says. Now, when it comes to that physical drink, Jesus is quoted as saying, "This is my blood of the Covenant." "This is my blood of the Covenant." "This cup that is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood." "This cup is the New Covenant in my blood." So in one way or another, Jesus is saying, "This is my blood." These are the facts, and both sides have to accept that.

Now, we're going to come back to all this in just a moment, but first, let's go to John chapter 2. "On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, 'They have no wine.' Jesus said to her, 'Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.' His mother said to the servants, 'Do whatever he tells you.' Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding 20 or 30 gallons. Jesus said to the servants, 'Fill the jars with water,' and they filled them up to the brim. And he said to them, 'Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast.' So they took it. When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine and did not know where it came from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew, the master of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, 'Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine, but you have kept the good wine until now.' This the first of his signs Jesus did at Cana in Galilee and manifested His glory, and his disciples believed in him. After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and his brothers and his disciples, and they stayed there for a few days."

So this, the changing of water into wine, the first of his signs Jesus did at Cana in Galilee. Now, what we can learn from this is that Jesus has the ability to take one thing and miraculously turn it into something else. So given that fact, it's within the realm of possibility that Jesus could take bread and miraculously turn that into his body. Also, if he wanted, he could take wine and miraculously turn that into his blood. These are concepts that should not sound crazy to you if you believe that Jesus can turn water into wine. So on SA, when Jesus said, "This is my body," and "This is my blood," Side A says he just performed miracles there. Side B, on the other hand, hears, "This is my body," and "This is my blood," and they say, "No, no miracle took place there. That's not what happened."

"According to Side B, this is what happened. We as Protestants believe that this is more symbolic, right? It's similar to where Jesus said, 'I am the door,' or 'I am the vine.' We know that Jesus is not really a door and he's not really a vine. He was speaking in symbolic language. In the same way, saying, 'Hey, this represents my body, this represents my blood,' but in no way is it going to supernaturally turn into the actual physical flesh and blood of Jesus. It's the new cup, the cup of the New Covenant in my blood. Do this in remembrance of me. This, this bread, this is my body broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me. I don't think that they understood him to mean that it was physical."

"Our next question comes from Carolina X Rose and they say, 'Hi Mike, question regarding the Lord's Supper. I was discussing the Lord's Supper with a Catholic friend following Easter and hadn't realized how differently we reviewed it. Protestants believe communion is symbolic, while Catholics believe Christ is physically and spiritually present in the Eucharist.' I don't think that this is, uh, literal. This was language that was symbolic. This represents my body, this represents my blood. Here is my body broken for you. Here is my blood, blood of the New Covenant, poured out for many for their remission of sins. They weren't actually those things."

Okay, so everybody on SB believes that "this is my body" means "this is a symbol, sign, or representation of my body and not my actual body." And everyone on SB believes that "this is my blood" means "this is a symbol, sign, a representation of my blood and not my actual blood." Meanwhile, everyone on SA, they believe that "this is my body" means "really, this is my body." And they believe that "this is my blood" means "really, this is my blood."

So basically, what we have here are statements of "this is my blank." "This is my body." "This is my blood." The statements go, "This is my blank." And there are at least two possible ways to interpret a "this is my blank" statement. It could mean "really, this is my blank." For instance, "This is my Game Boy." So you can fill in the blank with Game Boy. And when I say, "This is my Game Boy," I mean, "Really, this is my Game Boy." Like, that's really what this is. "This is my Game Boy."

Getting back to blanks. So if somebody said, "This is my blank," they could mean it as, "This is a symbol, sign, or representation of my blank and not my actual blank." For instance, "This is my stomach." Put "stomach" in the blank there. And the way I mean it is, "This is a symbol, sign, a representation of my stomach and not my actual stomach." This is not my actual stomach. It's just a box. It's an empty box. And because it's an empty box, "This is my stomach." It's a symbol, sign, or representation of my stomach because I haven't eaten in days and I am very hungry right now. So a statement of "this is my blank" could mean "really, this is my blank," but it also could mean "this is a symbol, sign, or representation of my blank and not my actual blank."

So the question is, when God said, "This is my body," or "This is my blood," which way did God mean it? The Bible never comes right out and tells us. The Bible just says, "This is my body." "This is my blood." There's no, "Really, this is my body," and "Really, this is my blood." There's no, "This is a symbol, sign, or representation of my body and not my actual body." And there's no, "This is a symbol, sign, or representation of my blood and not my actual blood." So the Bible doesn't come right out and tell us which of these options we should pick.

That being said, "this is my body" and "this is my blood" are not the only two "this is my blank" statements made by God. For instance, as we read just a little bit earlier, Jesus said, "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." So in addition to "this is my body" and "this is my blood," Jesus also said, "This is my commandment." But funny thing is, on Side B, they don't take that to mean "this is a symbol, sign, or representation of my commandment and not my actual commandment." Instead, they interpret "this is my commandment" as "really, this is my commandment."

And speaking of "this is my blank" statements that God made. Moses said to God, "If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' what shall I say to them?" God said to Moses, "I am who I am." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" God also said to Moses, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.'" So God said, "This is my name." But again, Side B doesn't interpret "this is my name" as "this is a symbol, sign, or representation of my name and not my actual name." Instead, Side B interprets "this is my name" as "really, this is my name."

Now, Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented. And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him. And behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."

So we've got God filling in the blank here with "beloved Son." He says, "This is my beloved Son." And you know what Side B doesn't do? They don't interpret that as "this is a symbol, sign, or representation of my beloved Son and not my actual beloved Son." Instead, Side B interprets that as "really, this is my beloved Son." Like, that's actually him right there. That's my beloved Son. You're looking at him. That's my beloved Son.

So, so we've got some statements made by God where he says, "This is my blank." And for "this is my commandment," "this is my name," and "this is my beloved Son," SBE interprets them all as "really, this is my blank." And Side A does the same thing. Side A then continues to do that with "this is my body" and "this is my blood." They interpret it as "really, this is my body" and "really, this is my blood." But Side B says, "Hey, no. What are you doing? You shouldn't be doing that to 'this is my body' and 'this is my blood.' You got to treat them differently." For these three "this is my blank" statements made by God, you can treat them as "really, this is my blank." But when it comes to what Jesus said at the Last Supper, you got to say "this is my blank" means "this is a symbol, sign, or representation of my blank and not my actual blank." But why are you doing that, SBE? There is nothing in the Bible that says to do that. So why are you assuming that Jesus was simply introducing signs at the Last Supper?

Before you answer that question, let's read a little more from the Bible. God said to Noah and to his sons with him, "Behold, I establish my Covenant with you and your Offspring after you, and with every living creature that is with you—the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the Earth with you, as many as came out of the ark. It is for every beast of the Earth. I establish my Covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the Earth." And God said, "This is the sign of the Covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you for all future Generations. I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the Covenant between me and the Earth. When I bring clouds over the Earth, and my bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my Covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh, and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the Everlasting Covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the Earth." God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the Covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the Earth."

So yeah, God made a covenant with Noah and Noah's offspring and with a bunch of living creatures. God said, "I establish my Covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the Earth." So that right there, that was God's covenant. Now, in addition to God's covenant, God also said, "I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the Covenant between me and the Earth." So God's bow is a sign of the Covenant, and God was super clear about it too. He said, "This is the sign of the Covenant." "It shall be a sign of the Covenant." "This is the sign of the Covenant." But we don't see God saying that at the Last Supper. Instead, he said, "This is my blood of the Covenant."

So we have signs of the Covenant here, and we have Jesus's blood of the Covenant here. But for some reason, SBE insists that "this is a sign of the blood of the Covenant and not the actual blood of the Covenant." So my question for you is this: What makes you think that in the Last Supper accounts, that "this is my blank" statements have to be interpreted as "this is a symbol, sign, or representation of my blank and not my actual blank"? Part of the reason why I'm asking this is because SBE doesn't treat any of God's other "this is my blank" statements in that way. Also, another part of the reason, God clearly knows how to introduce symbolism into the mix if that's what he wants to do. God can call something a sign of the Covenant if it's actually a sign of the Covenant. So Side B, please try to answer this question.

True, but irrelevant. So this is something that you might hear from someone on Side B. It's kind of a red herring type of thing. They'll give you information that really isn't important towards the topic. Now, there's an endless controversy about what Jesus meant when he said, "This is my body." Was he identifying that bread with himself? Was the verb "to be" there used as a copula, meaning an identification that this bread is identical to my body? Now, there are lots of people who think so. Luther took the position in the debates and discussions among the reformers about whether or not the bread was literally the body of Christ. Like Nikita Khrushchev at the United Nations, Luther pounded on the table saying, "Hoc est corpus meum." "This is my body." Well, everybody knew that's what he said. But he also said, "I am the door," and through which men must. And nobody took that to mean that Jesus literally was to be identified with oak and veneer and doorknobs and hinges. So that was RC Sproul. And what he's saying here could all be true, but this part here is irrelevant to the conversation because the conversation here is about how Jesus said, "This is my body." So if we're talking about "this is my body," then what does "I am the door" have to do with that? But he also said, "I am the door." I mean, if we're just going to be pulling in any random "I am the blank" statement that Jesus made, there's also, "I am the one who bears witness about myself." And don't forget, "I am the Son of God." So should we pull those into the conversation as well? These are all things that Jesus said. So Mr. Sproul is correct here. Jesus did say this. He did say this. But he also said this. And he also said this. These are four separate statements made in four very different situations. So why go from talking about "this is my body" to "I am the door"? Well, typically on SB, that's just because "I am the door" is seen as figurative. So basically, what SB is doing is saying, "Hey, look, I know 'this is my body' sounds literal and it could be literal, but also Jesus can speak figuratively." So you...

Know to which side I could just be like, "Yeah, we know Jesus can speak figuratively, and also he could speak literally." These other statements here have no impact on whether "this is my body" is literal or figurative. So, if we're going to talk about "this is my body," let's talk about "this is my body." Let's not go off on a tangent that tells us nothing about "this is my body."

Luther pounded on the table saying, "Hest Corpus mayam, host! Hest Corpus may, this is my body." Well, everybody knew that's what he said. But he also said, "I am the door." Could you imagine if Martin here were trying to convince people that Jesus is the Son of God, and he's quoting the Bible saying, "God said, 'This is my beloved Son. This is my beloved Son. This is my beloved Son.'" And then the person he's talking to responds by saying, "Well, everybody knew that's what he said. But he also said, 'I am the door.'" You see how what he's saying is true, but irrelevant? "I am the door" has absolutely no impact on whether "this is my beloved Son" is literal or figurative. Likewise, "I am the door" has absolutely no impact on whether "this is my body" is literal or figurative. Each individual statement should be evaluated on its own.

But yeah, a lot of people on SB tend to resort to this. They'll typically do it with "this is my body" or any of these things that Jesus said about eating his flesh. To see an example of this, we go to Gary Hamrick. Ever since Jesus said what he did here, there has continued to be quarreling over his words throughout the church age, okay? Particularly among Roman Catholics versus the Protestant view of what Jesus is saying here in John chapter 6. Now, I'll get to that in a minute, but I want you to especially see why the debate is what it is today. If you read further the words of Jesus, because the F- the things that he says further become even a little more complicated.

Look at verse 53: "Then Jesus said to them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.'" Please understand, there are many places in the Bible where Jesus used very extreme terminology to communicate an extreme point, but he wasn't always being literal. Example: there is a place where Jesus also said, "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out." Now, if he actually meant that literally, we'd all look like pirates walking around with patches on our eyes and hooks on our hands, okay? He didn't mean it literally.

So, Gary starts off by quoting what Jesus said about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and then Gary switches to a completely different conversation where Jesus is talking about tearing out your eye and cutting off your hand. So, again, true, Jesus did say all this. But if we're trying to figure out whether "Eat My Flesh and drink My blood" is literal or figurative, this stuff about tearing out your eye and cutting off your hand is irrelevant. Why pull that into the conversation? Everyone agrees that's hyperbole; it's an exaggeration to prove a point. But it tells us nothing about whether "Eat My Flesh and drink My blood" is literal or figurative. You've got to evaluate each statement as its own statement.

Now, if somebody were to point out that at the Last Supper, Jesus said, "Eat, this is my body," and Jesus also said, "Whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me," then that's a relevant thing to point out because in both situations, the topic is about eating Jesus. And if somebody were to point out that at the Last Supper, Jesus took bread, and when he gave it to his disciples, he said, "This is my body," then it would make sense if they continued by saying, "Jesus also said, 'The bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.'" This will be relevant to the conversation because both situations are talking about Jesus giving people bread, which he says is part of him.

Another relevant use of Jesus also said would be: "Jesus also said, 'Fill the jars with water.'" And why would that be relevant? Well, because after he said that, they filled them up to the brim, and he said to them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast." The water had now become wine. "This the first of His signs Jesus did at Cana in Galilee and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him." So, why is this relevant in trying to figure out what happened at the Last Supper? Because from this, the first of Jesus's signs, we know that Jesus can turn one thing into another thing. Which means when you read about the Last Supper, the bread could be his body, and the wine could be his blood. Thanks to this miracle that Jesus performed in the presence of his disciples, the option that things are changing into Jesus's body and blood is on the table.

Of course, you won't find SB talking about any of that. They're going to talk about "I am the door" and tearing out your eye and cutting off your hand, things that are irrelevant to the situation. And then there's Todd Friel. "There are some who would say that the bread and the wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Is that true? If it is, Jesus is also a door. He is also water. He is also light. See?" Yeah, that was Todd Friel. Todd Friel said this nonsense right here. I'm guessing that everybody on side A and side B can see how this is messed up. But let's just break it apart real quick. Each of these things is referring to something that Jesus said. And according to Mr. Friel, these five statements are linked in such a way that if these two are literal, then the rest have to become literal.

"There are some who would say that the bread and the wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Is that true? If it is, Jesus is also a door, and also this statement has to transform from 'the water that I will give' to 'I am water.' He is also water." What Todd is saying here is complete nonsense. But again, he's pointing out that Jesus also said this, and this, and this. And that's fine. Jesus did say these other things. Those are true statements from Jesus. But they are irrelevant to the situation.

So, as side B, here's some advice: If you're going to pull out the "Jesus also said, he also said, Jesus also said" line, then explain why what he also said matters in terms of "this is my body." Because otherwise, you're just wasting our time and you're damaging your side. If you're doing what Sproul or Hamrick or Friel is doing here, you're basically saying, "We can't handle this conversation, so we're going to try to move to a different conversation." If you're ever talking to somebody on side B and that happens, don't let them change the conversation. Stay with "this is my body." Talk about things relevant to that.

And guys, he's he's back. I don't know if you want to get security or what. He's... "Are you lost, sir? Can I help you?" "No." "All right." Can Jesus talk about the future? So, right here on the timeline in Capernaum, Jesus said that he will give food. He said that he will give his flesh, which is true food. And since Jesus said he will give it, that means that this is going to happen in the future. Now, in John 6, we're not told when this is going to happen. So, it could have been two seconds after he said it, a few months after he said it, a whole year after he said it. Again, John 6 doesn't have Jesus telling us when he's going to give it. We're just told that he said he will give it, which means it's going to happen at some point.

"And the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." This is put into the future. "Dosō" is the Greek term, but "I will give," not "I am." "I will." It's in the future. Oh, good. So, even Mr. White, who knows the Greek, agrees with us. When Jesus says "will give," he's talking about the future. Now, as we looked at in part one, Mr. White thinks that this future event is referring to the crucifixion. "This is some... this is looking forward to the cross. This is looking forward to the cross." "The bread also which I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

So, in side A reads John 6 and they hear Jesus saying that this bread that he will give is his flesh, they think that he's talking about the Last Supper when he takes a piece of bread and then he blesses it and gives it to him saying, "This is my body." But as for Mr. White and others on side B, they read about how Jesus said there's a bread that he will give which is his flesh, and they believe that he's talking about dying on the cross. "And the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." Now, he's talking about giving up his life. He is going to give his flesh for the life of the world. How did he do that? You remember that cat of nine tails? When Jesus Christ was being sent to be crucified, they ripped the flesh off of him. He gave his flesh. He is not giving his flesh as bread to partake and eat literally. He is talking about, "I will give my life for the world." So, the sides disagree as to what the future event is that Jesus is talking about. But both sides agree that "will give" means that Jesus is talking about something that's going to happen in the future.

So, now that we know all that, let's hear from Mr. White. "Let's say you're you're flying someplace, taking a bus someplace, taking a train someplace, going on a cruise, whatever it is. And you you maybe you're you're sitting there and you've got your Bible open and you get into that conversation and you you you you end up in John chapter 6 talking with a Roman Catholic. Run a little program back in your mind as you are reading these words, 'I am the bread of life.' The Roman Catholic is thinking the wafer, the consecrated host in in the mass. And you might go, 'Wait a minute, that even if that were the case, that the the Lord's Supper hasn't even been established yet.' Well, that's true. That's true."

Okay, so according to Mr. White here, as you're reading the words, "I am the bread of life," the Roman Catholic is thinking the wafer, the consecrated host in the mass. Now, why might it be that a Catholic Christian on side A would think about the mass when hearing the words "I am the bread of life"? Well, as we've discussed earlier in the video, it's not not just because Jesus said, "I am the bread of life." It's because he also said, "If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever." And he followed that up by saying, "The bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." And then he went on to teach a bunch of stuff about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. And he also mentioned that his flesh is true food and his blood is true drink. Then, a little further down the timeline, at the Last Supper, Jesus takes bread, and he gives it to his disciples again. This was happening after Jesus already said he was going to give them bread. So, he gave them bread, and he said, "This is my body." And just in case it slipped anybody's mind, in Capernaum, he said that the bread that he will give is his flesh. So, yeah, one of them Roman Catholics might be thinking about the mass when they hear these words. But not just because of these words, but because of all of these words, and all of these words, and also all of these words.

Jesus can turn water into wine. Why not bread into his body or wine into his blood? But anyway, I digress. Mr. White seems to think it's strange that side A thinks that this teaching from Capernaum was about the Last Supper. And he closes this argument: "He says, 'You might go, wait a minute, even if that were the case, the Lord's Supper hasn't even been established yet.' To which Mr. White says, 'Well, that's true. That's true.'" And you know what, Mr. White, that is true. When Jesus was delivering this teaching in Capernaum, the Lord's Supper hasn't even been established yet. At least not established in time. The Lord's Supper easily could have been established in the mind of God. God could have known it was coming. But chronologically speaking, on a timeline, the teaching in Capernaum happened here, before the Last Supper. But what's your point, Jimmy? Do you think that Jesus can't talk about something unless it happened already? Because in John chapter 2, Jesus said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It has taken 46 years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" But he was speaking about the temple of his body. "When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken." So, here we have Jesus talking about destroying a temple, and that happened at this point in time. But the event that he's referring to actually happened at this point in time. So, according to the Bible, Jesus can talk about the future. And even according to this theory that Mr. White has about the crucifixion, Jesus can talk about the future. So, again, Mr. White, what is your point? The the Lord's Supper hasn't even been established yet.

I have seven reasons why we ought to read the Bread of Life discourse as a metaphor. The first is because, just contextually, historically, the Eucharist hasn't been established at this point in time when Jesus is actually preaching the the Bread of Life discourse to the people there. The Eucharist had not even been established. The Eucharist had not been established yet. So that cannot be what Jesus is talking about. Why not, Mr. Brooks? Jesus can talk about the future. Everyone on both sides believes that Jesus can talk about the future. So why are you saying that the Last Supper cannot be what Jesus was talking about? Jesus knew about Judas betraying him before it happened. Jesus knew what he was going to do on the day he fed the 5,000 before it happened. Jesus talked about rising from the dead before it happened. Jesus talked about his Ascension before it happened. According to the Bible, Jesus can both know about and talk about the future. So why are these guys from side B acting like this would be an issue?

If you were raised Roman Catholic, that's what you were taught. You are actually eating the body and blood. Now, that is not what Jesus means here. How do I know that? I know that number one, because he has not yet instituted the Last Supper, communion, at all yet, and he won't for another couple of years. So for him to say this at this point would be a nonsensical statement to anyone listening, even his disciples. So it's not clear exactly what the argument is here. But Skip is either saying just flat out, Jesus can't talk about the future, or he's saying that Jesus can't talk about the future if it has the potential to sound nonsensical to somebody. Either way, it's a load of crap. Skip, first of all, Jesus can talk about the future. So if you're flat out saying that he can't, that's wrong. Now, if you're just saying that he can't talk about the future if it has the potential to sound nonsensical to his audience, that's also wrong. Jesus talked about rising from the dead. He talked about ascending into heaven. You think these things don't have the potential to sound nonsensical to somebody? This argument from Mr. Heig is garbage. But so many people on SB make this argument.

We love our Roman Catholic friends, but we seek to give them the gospel. And I would tell you this: there are three reasons why Jesus is not referring to the Lord's Supper here, not at all. A.W. Pink writes about this. Number one is this: the Lord's Supper, or communion, has not yet had been instituted. Jesus is not talking about that because that doesn't happen till much later in his ministry. I'm going to read this comment from Arthur Pink. This is what brother Pink had to say. He said, "This passage in John 6 is a favorite one with ritualists who understand it to refer to the Lord's Supper, but this is certainly a mistake, and that for the following reasons: First, the Lord's Supper had not been instituted when Christ delivered this discourse. You know, it wasn't until the very end of his life that he instituted the Lord's Supper. It hadn't even been instituted yet."

Okay, so here's the problem. Did you notice that both Jeff and David cited the same guy, A.W. Pink? Arthur Pink. Arthur W. Pink lived from 1886 to 1952. And apparently, during his life, he came up with this argument. Now, I'm going to guess that most of you watching right now, if not all of you, now understand that this argument makes no sense. I'm going to guess that Jeff and David would even watch this video and say, "Yeah, that argument doesn't make any sense." So why is it that this argument from over 70 years ago is being shared today by these two guys? Well, that's because they trusted Arthur Pink without testing him. If you test out this argument, it takes five minutes and you realize, "Okay, that's stupid. I should not get in front of a crowd and say that. I definitely shouldn't record myself saying that and then post it online for everybody to see." Because again, this is a really dumb argument, and I don't want my name attached to it. But now David and Jeff have attached their name to this argument. And why? Because they trusted Arthur Pink without testing them. This is why we always say, when it comes to us, or these people on side B, or your teachers, or your pastors, or your parents, or your friends, or talking dogs, hello. When it comes to anyone teaching you Christianity, don't trust us. Test us.

Now, I'm really curious to hear what James from Study Is Key has to say about this because in part one, we talked about SB teaching on John 6:63 and how that was stupid, and James, even though he's on side B, agreed with us. "One thing I do want to say right off the bat, and we'll see this as I go through the video, I agree with Ferris, um, that Protestants often make bad arguments from John 6. I think that side B's typical interpretation of verse 63 stinks. In other words, Jesus is saying that the true meaning behind the metaphoric language and the figurative language is that it pertains to a spiritual dynamic, not a physical one. It is not physical." Yeah, so I'm not going to play the rest of these clips. But basically, all these other Protestant pastors go on to make similar points from verse 63. And Ferris is absolutely right to call them out on this because it's a terrible argument. I got to put it bluntly, it's a dumb argument, and I wish that Protestants would stop making that argument because it just makes our position look weak, or at least weaker. Uh, and also, obviously, I mean, this is part of verse 63, I guess, so I don't have to mention it. But I'll, since I've started, I'll mention it. When Jesus says that the flesh is no help at all, he's not saying that his flesh is no help at all. That is absolutely stupid. So please drop that. I, I use that language very intentionally. It is stupid. Please stop using it. I'm being, I'm being even more harsh than Ferris was on you. Stop using it. It's stupid.

So that was great to hear. Obviously, James is still on side B. He's still making arguments for side B. But he acknowledges that a lot of people on his side are doing something really dumb with that verse. So James, if you're watching, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this argument from side B because it's so ridiculous, yet so many people make it. This is John 6. Long before the Last Supper, the crucifixion, and resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus. This is John 6. This is long before Jesus gives that Last Supper where he breaks the bread and gives them the wine. This is long before then. Jeff, it doesn't matter how long before the Last Supper Capernaum happened. Jesus could talk about the Last Supper in Capernaum because Jesus can talk about the future. The challenge still stands.

All right, so if you're on side B and you think you can refute anything that was in part one or part two, then give it a shot. If you think that you can give us a good argument for why side B is better than side A, we want to hear from you. So leave a detailed comment, or even better, make a video response. Hopefully, we can slowly but surely, even if it's not in just one shot, move toward common ground. Uh, that's obviously the goal here. We would love there, there are many Roman Catholics that I love and adore, um, and that I would love to be in fellowship with. But obviously, as a Protestant, I cannot, uh, fellowship with Roman Catholics. As James mentioned, the goal here should be to try to find common ground. Both sides should be trying to figure out where the truth is, and then join together in sharing the truth. One of these two sides is definitely wandering from the truth, but they can be brought back.

Now, no matter who you are watching this, if you're Christian or non-Christian, side A or side B, I want you to know that you're all welcome on side A. We want you to join us in proclaiming Christ's death until he comes. We want you to have life in you. We want you to believe in Jesus. And what kind of things would you believe if you believed in Jesus? Well, you'd believe in him when he said he'll give his flesh. You'll believe in him when he said, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you." You'll believe in Jesus when he said his flesh is true food and his blood is true drink. And you'll believe in Jesus when he said, "This is my body" and "This is my blood." And you'll believe in Jesus when he said, "You are my friends if you do what I command you." And what were some things that Jesus commanded the people to do? Well, as we talked about a lot today, he commanded people to eat and to drink. So, do you want to obey Jesus's commands? I would hope so, because John the Baptist said, "Whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him." To everyone watching, you're invited this Sunday and every Sunday to a Catholic Christian Mass. Don't go up for the Eucharist if you have not yet received the sacrament because you need to make sure that you don't eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner. But you can go to a Catholic Christian church and listen to the mass being said. Bring your Bible with you and follow along with the readings, or in many Catholic Christian churches, they'll have a book there in the pew with you, and that will go through the entire mass, as well as include the Bible readings for each day. After the mass, introduce yourself to the priest. Ask them any questions you might have. Give them your email, that way they can get back to you. Because seriously, side A wants you there. As Fulton Sheen said, "There are not 100 people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be." After listening to the arguments from side B and just seeing how ridiculous and detaching from reality a lot of them are, you can't trust side B when they tell you about side A, especially when they tell you about the Catholic Christian Church. So, if you currently do not like the Catholic Christian Church, not necessarily hate it, but if you don't like it, maybe test the things that you think you don't like, because there's a really good chance that the thing you don't like is a thing that you wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.

All right, if you could please share this video, that would be great. Parts one and two, email them to friends, put it on Facebook, Twitter. Ask these guys on side B to watch the video. See if they'll take the challenge. Click that thumbs up button. Subscribe to the channel and keep coming back to join that conversation in the comments. There's a lot of good stuff in the comments of part one. I'm sure part two will be the same. So, yeah, chat with people. This is how to be Christian. You all have a great day.

Why, like, is there a point to this or what's the deal?

[Music]

Wrinkles, is that you? Do you mean the drum sound? Yes, that... then yes. What are you doing? Well, Martin Luther and I, we're just going to play this board game that I found. You found it? No, no, wrinkles, wrinkles, wrinkles, do not play that game. Hey, come on, come on. Do you have any idea what this is? Have you not seen the documentary? I'm sorry, you just happen to have that in arm's reach away. Wrinkles, Martin, none of you play this game. Fine. Wow, if you don't want to share, we'll just find something else to play. Here's your dice. Brickles.

[Music]

Now, great. What did I do? You started the game. Wrinkles, I'm so sorry. It's all right. We're going to deal with whatever crazy thing comes out of here. Their methods are sketchy, their logic is poor, but let's see why these pastors... Same metaphor. The reason Jesus is giving these graphic pictures of eating flesh and drinking blood is because he's simply conveying the idea: you must partake of what I am going to do for you. To eat his flesh and to drink his blood is to believe on him. Actually, the coming is the eating, and and the believing is the drinking. What does it mean to eat of the living bread? It means to believe. So, you have to eat and drink, which is talking about inclining your ear to listen. That's what he's talking about when he's talking about eating and drinking. He's talking about listening to the truth of the word. He could explain, "He who listens to me." He could change it to the word "listen" instead of "eats." And what Jesus is saying simply is that you need him to survive. You've got to be kidding me. Side B doesn't even agree on what the metaphor means. So, it's what he's really saying here, in my opinion, is that there's a sense of coming to Jesus spiritually and taking all that he has in. And you eat and drink, sort of like there's a, it feeds you. You're being fed in your spirit. His words. So, I think that's what he's saying. "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood." It's not literal. Sorry, it's definitely not physical. There. I don't know if that helps or if that it's really accurate.