Christians vs Catholics: Who Is Wrong About the Eucharist Using John 6 | The Bible In Context Show

Blessings in Jesus, everybody. We've got an exciting show here today. We're going to be talking about the Roman Catholic Eucharist, and we're going to specifically be in John chapter 6, and we'll entertain going a few other places as well.

Now, I'm going to be joined today by Chris Quintana, and we're going to be kind of arguing from the side point of biblical Christianity, going to the scripture and what it actually teaches. And we're hoping to have Catholics join us live here today. We've sent out an open mic invitation to multiple Catholics across all the different social media channels: Instagram, Facebook, over on X, and elsewhere. So, we're hoping that some of you guys will join. If you don't want to join and you want to put some things in the comments, you can feel free to do that. And if we don't have anything else kind of joining in, then we'll go ahead and pull from a different Catholic apologetics book. This is something I had when I was a former Catholic myself. And Chris here as well. Why don't you go ahead and introduce yourself quick to us, Chris?

Well, thanks so much, Patrick. It's what a blessing to be a part of this. And, um, I guess I'll say this for both of us. Coming at this from a former Catholic, uh, point of view and having family still in it, uh, it's not personal with me. And, and, uh, this isn't really intended to be insulting or or argumentative. Uh, I think it's just kind of speaking for where you and I both came to the point where we thought there are a number of places that, uh, number, yeah, places in the scripture where we found that what we believed are at odds with what the scripture has to teach. And with me, and I know that same with you, we made it kind of our, our business, if you will, to look into those texts and say, is what we were taught to believe something that I can biblically make the case for? And when I found that I couldn't do that with so many different things, it, it made me realize that the scripture has to take precedent and priority over anything else. And so, uh, this is not, not personal for me. It's just, where does the truth lie? That's the important part. It's not about trying to support one church over another.

Amen. Yeah. I think that's an important thing to communicate to those of you guys who are listening, whether here on live with us today or on replay. The, the reality is, we're critiquing Catholic theology. We're not trying to speak derogatory things towards people or towards our brothers or sisters in Christ. We, we are lovingly sharing the truth of God's word as we are commanded to do throughout the New Testament, especially in Titus 1:9, where not only are we to teach sound doctrine, but we are to exhort and expose the unfruitful works of darkness and expose the wrong teachings, the doctrines of demons. And so, we're going to be doing that here today when we look at John 6.

Now, for those of you guys that are watching live, over in the comments, you'll see a, a pinned post at the top, and it'll look like this. And so, that's the link right there, the StreamYard link that you can click and to come join us live if you are a Roman Catholic and you want to voice your objection. So, we hope some people will come in and, and do that. But until they do, we're going to go ahead and start looking at John chapter 6, because that's the whole point here is to teach and look at what John 6 is actually saying.

Now, you might ask, why John 6? Well, the reality is, is John 6 is sort of the, the entire thing of the Roman Catholic Eucharist hinges upon John chapter 6. If John 6 is proven to be an actual symbol, a symbolic language, then everything else Jesus said falls in line. It works perfectly. And so, if, if we can prove that this is symbolic language that he's using, which we will here today, then you'll see that everything else that Roman Catholicism tries to do just falls short. And so, for those of you who don't know, in Roman Catholic theology, the Eucharist is a transubstantiation. This is a term and a definition that was invented over a thousand years after the time of the apostles. And this was something where you see it first at the Lateran Council, and then a number of years later with Thomas Aquinas, who really gives the definition and, and meaning behind the transubstantiation from a more of a philosophical Aristotle type viewpoint, where you have substances and accidents. And so, that teaching of Roman Catholicism is the error that we're going to be exposing here today, that the elements literally turn into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. And so, John 6 is going to be that place where they go. And then, of course, if we want to, we can look at a few other passages on that specifically. Chris, what do you think when you first see John 6? What do you think? Is there a key verse in John 6 that you would look at as something that defines all the others, or, or what's your take there?

Well, I, I know the one that they like to point to, that if you don't eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you. So, that's the jumping off point. Um, but, uh, usually they don't start with the beginning where he first introduces the thought. And, uh, I know you're going to get into kind of the chronology of it, of what, what's the event that preceded this that started the dialogue, but, uh, it's when he says, "I'm the bread of life." So, it's his first "I am" in the Gospel of John, and it's the only, only in the Gospel of John do you find this, this discussion. And what he says here is not mentioned in the other three gospels, nor is it mentioned in or alluded to in any of the epistles. It's only John's gospel, some 60 years after the resurrection, and Jesus is recorded as saying this. John being an eyewitness to it. Jesus gives the first of seven "I ams" beginning with the bread of life here in chapter six.

Amen. Yeah. I think that's, that's crucial to point out too, because each of the four gospels have a specific theme to them. In John's gospel, his theme is showing the deity of Christ. Whereas you see in other, other gospels, they're showing a different theme. Whether it's the humanity of Jesus in, in Luke, you have the, the king, royalty aspect of Jesus in Matthew, and then you have the servant aspect in Mark. Well, in John, we're showing the deity of Christ. And so, in John, we see the "I am" statements, because the "I am" is a going all the way back to Exodus 3. It's the "I am that I am." He's showing that he is the ego, he is the Yahweh of the Old Testament. And so, when you see the "I am" here, this is what he's showing is eternality. He's showing that he was God and always was God. And so, when we see this first one here, he's, "I am the bread of life." This is the bread that you have to consume to have eternal life. Just as with the other "I am" statements, they have a reference to our eternal life and salvation. And so, you know, like Chris said, when we get to John 6, the chronology here, I think, is, is important because the, the four gospels are not in chronological order. You have Luke that is fairly in chronological order in almost all the aspects with a couple exceptions, but his is the one that you're going to find more chronology to. So, we have to understand the life and ministry of Jesus in chronological order if we're going to understand what Jesus was saying, when he was saying it, why he was saying it, who he was saying it to, so that things fall into place. And the reality is, is that when we go to Matthew 12, we see something of the unpardonable sin. We see something happening there, a shift in Jesus's teaching where the Pharisees, the leadership of Israel, rejected Jesus as the Messiah. And after that rejection, we see in Matthew 13, Jesus begins to teach in parables and starts to speak in things in a spiritual context to try to, uh, it's, it's a judgment on the rejection of Israel of his messiahship. And we know that because the disciples tell Jesus, why are you teaching in parables all of a sudden? Because this was something new. They weren't used to him doing that. So it shifted right there at the end of Matthew 12, Matthew 13. And here in John 6, this is coming after chronologically Matthew 13. So now Jesus, in his teaching publicly, he would teach in parables. And so this is one of the things we're going to see him doing when he's teaching here symbolically, in a way that's not literal, and, and towards the end of John 6. But I think it's absolutely crucial to look at the very beginning of John 6 where he talks about the bread, and he, he's taking it back to an Old Testament motif. He's taking it back to the, the manna that fell in the desert and, and telling them. So Chris, I think until we get somebody kind of looking at this, we can kind of just summarize some of the early part of the chapter. Cuz a lot of times, like you said, when, when we talk to Catholics in John 6, they just jump right over to, uh, you know what, verse 50, verse 51, right?

And, and skip the rest of it. It's almost like Catholics only know certain passages in, in Matthew 16 and then John 6. And that's th, those are the ones they hold on to instead of interpreting scripture with scripture and looking at the entirety of the context, you know, looking at code text in the Old Testament and other passages, they just go to those couple. So, you know, I think when we look at what Jesus saying is saying here in verse 27, he says, "Labor not for the meat which perishes, but for the meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of Man shall give unto you, for Him has God the Father sealed." So, we have something here of the nature now, everlasting life. And, and don't labor for the meat that perishes, but the meat that endures for everlasting life. He's already beginning to contrast this idea of physical and spiritual. Don't do the physical meat that perishes. Look for the spiritual. So, we already see the, the, this, this separation in spiritual versus literal start to happen. And then he goes on, and these, these guys now, the Jews here that are talking to him are the Jews that just saw the miracles that he was doing when he fed the thousands prior to. And so, they're coming back to him and they're seeing him here in, in, uh, in Capernaum. And so, this is where he's at. And so, these are the same people when Jesus is trying to get through to them the, the understanding of who he is. And so, you know, they were thinking carnally minded. Jesus is trying to now explain spiritually. They said to him in verse 28, "What, what will we do with the works of God?" And he says, Jesus in 29, Jesus answers to them, "This is the work of God that you believe on Him whom He has sent." And I think that's really one of the key vers. There's a couple key verses in John 6, but I think that's one of the key verses in John 6 and in general in, in all of the gospels, is that we believe on Him who He has sent. Not just believe in somebody randomly, but believe in the Messiah, the Son of God, the living God, whom He has sent to have eternal life.

Right. And so, what are your thoughts on that, Chris?

See, this is why I think it's so important that, and this is just elementary Bible study. It's not to just read a particular verse, but its context is the king of all of this. And this is the, the danger that we, that that the church really kind of run in, runs into. It's almost as though sometimes people will pick up a Bible as though we're the first recipients of the, you know, reading it like it was written for us. When, [clears throat] Jesus is having these discussions, he's not speaking to the church, [right?] so he's talking to a Jewish audience that when he starts talking about eating flesh and drinking blood would have created the reaction that it did. So to me, there's almost a playfulness in this that he goes, he, if I'm going to paraphrase it, so are you guys actually wanting to learn something or you just here for lunch? That's kind of his whole premise to them. Did you come, what happened yesterday? Is this why you're here, [or is there more that you want to know?] And so I, again, it's a, it's a really good observation that you've made that it is, okay, you guys are thinking completely in the physical realm based on what you saw yesterday. Now let me make this a spiritual application, which ultimately is all seven of the "I ams." So we may as well throw this out there right now. The seven "I ams." Chapter six is the bread of life. Chapter eight is, "I am the light of the world." Uh, chapter 10 is where he says, "I am the door to the sheepfold," and "I am the good shepherd." Both of those two are in chapter 10. 11 is, "I am the resurrection and the life," in chapter 11 at the, uh, at Lazarus. Uh, 14 is, "I'm the way, the truth, and the life." That's in the upper room. Um, the last night of, that's right, hours before his betrayal. And then, uh, chapter 15 is, "I'm the vine, you are the branches." So, John's the only one who records them. And all of the other six are absolutely 100% without any real question, they're completely symbolic. In two of them, he goes into a lot of detail to explain the symbolism behind it. Chapter 10 and 15 are the best examples because there are three symbols mainly that are there. It's he as the shepherd, and he as the gate, and we as the sheep. Clearly symbolic. None of that is literal. Chapter 15, vine and branches. We are not branches. He's not a vine. We're flesh and blood. So he's using symbols that they would understand to illustrate a spiritual point. And yet here, when we're talking with Catholics, they believe this one is symbolic, but the other six without question must be literal, because there's no way to make a, a, um, a literal, uh, presentation of them that explanation. So the idea that he would break with this pattern, and it's not picked up in the other gospels, really should make people think. I wonder if there is an alternative to a literal interpretation of this that doesn't run into other problems in the Old Testament, which is why we were talking about if these references that he makes, and his audience are Jewish, and they understand the law. So that's the people that he's speaking to. That's why this is important. His talking about eating flesh and drinking blood would be an absolute violation of the law of God to the point that it's punishable by death.

So that's an important matter.

Oh yeah, absolutely. That's a good point. You know, I like how you brought up with the scripture is not written to us individually. It's written for us, but it had an audience specific. And so, like you said, Jesus here is speaking in the Jewish context to Jewish people. And so, if we have to first and foremost understand it from that original context of the Jewishness of it. And so, I think like you said, in Leviticus, uh, it's, it's an important one where he talks about not eating the blood. And I think that's an objection that's often made. And, you know, for a lot of people watching live, a lot of the, the arguments from Catholics on the, the for the literal interpretation against the symbolic, symbolic interpretation, a lot of their arguments are, they have never changed. They're literally the same arguments. You know, for anybody who's wanting to get in apologetics towards Catholicism, you don't have to do too much research. They, they have them all written out. They have all their objections. This is what they believe on it, and it's done. And so, the reality is, we have an answer to their objection. And so, that's what we're starting to share here today. But I think Kyle put a, a verse up here from Once Lost Ministries where he's, he's using here, it comes down out of, um, where is it at? Verse 35 in John 6, he says, "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shall never hunger. He that believeth on me shall never thirst." And I think this is another one of those, those key passages, only because it's showing again the spiritual aspect. He's identifying himself as the bread of life, which he does a number of times through this actual passage. I think I wrote them out specifically. Yeah. In John, in John 10, you know, when he talks about, "I am the door," he mentions it twice. And then in John 15, "I am the vine," twice. But here in John 6, he references himself as the bread of God four times. In verse 33, the bread of God. Verse 35, "I am the bread of life." In verse 48, "I am the bread of life." Verse 51, "I am the living bread." So he's emphasizing this bread aspect here. And the first where we see it here in verse 35, he's talking about you'll never hunger, and he that believes will never thirst. So, this, there's a symbolic mechanism here that he's speaking about. It's, it's speaking symbolically in that sense, because if we eat Jesus, if we eat him in that wafer, we're, we still have hunger. We, you know, if we drink the wine, we still thirst. So obviously, this aspect here he's talking about has a spiritual context behind it. And I think that's, that's kind of building up the basics is the belief. And then when you go to verse 36, "But I said unto you that ye also have seen me and believe not." So the question here is, is not necessarily they didn't believe Jesus in the sense that they had to eat his flesh. It's that they didn't believe him. They, they legitimately didn't believe he said he is who he said he is. That he was coming to do these messianic miracles that they were denying. And so, that I think that's one reason too why they go back to to Moses, um, or back into the time of, of the Old Testament there where the manna fell, because he's, remember in the scripture in Deuteronomy 19, he's talking about a prophet greater than I will come. Moses is pointing to Jesus the Messiah who would come. And so Jesus is now going to be the, the manna that comes from heaven to give them food spiritually, not physically, because in the, in, in the Old Testament, they ate physically. They had their food, not spiritually. So this is the contrast again. A greater food is in the spiritual. Um, what do you say? What do you say to that, Chris?

Well, this is why again, the, the, the context and understanding of who he's, who's hearing this, those people that were, that were hearing his words live, if they heard the discussion that we're having today, they would wonder what, what's wrong with us? Because they may have had two different problems with him. First of all, his assertion of his deity, which he, you know, he's doing in a, in a pretty interesting way by saying, "I am." We know how that played in chapter 8 at the end of that where he said, "Before Abraham was, I am." And their reaction to that, well, they wanted to kill him for it. But then also, there is that understanding of the people who were listening to him that said, "But wait a minute, we know Leviticus 17:10. We know that if you're, if you're going to drink blood, you're going to be put to death for it." It was a, it was a punishable by death offense. So when they heard that, when he says, "Is this, is this scandalous to you?" He uses the word *skandalizo* there. Does this offend you? Are you scandalized by what I'm saying? Because it would have been a scandalous thing if he was speaking literally. So anybody hearing him would have to say, he's either out of his mind or there's something more to what he is saying here. And so I would come to this and say, we know what Leviticus 17 says. So, is there another alternative to a literal interpretation that doesn't run into that roadblock? And of course, we would say, well, yeah, just like all the other "I ams," he's speaking in symbols to illustrate a spiritual point.

Yeah, that's true. I think so. We have, I think a comment that popped in. Let's look in the comments here. Um, Jesus replied, disciples, you guys watching live, if you, if you ask a question, put a Q, maybe put a Q in front of your question and, and see, um, that's a good question there he's raised. Are Catholics going to join? We hope so. We can't force them to join, but we can definitely extend the invitation, um, and encourage them to not to not not join. Let's see. Okay, so here's a question from Catholic Crusader. Sounds like a Catholic to me. He says, "Are you arguing discerning that it's not his body? In 1 Corinthians 11:29, those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves." So, now, obviously, this doesn't play into John 6 right away, but I think this is a, this is a passage that's often brought up by Catholics, especially online. It's sort of, it's one of the few of the, um, "gotcha" verses is what they try to use, you know, instead of going to the full context. So, let's look at that. Let's look at that passage. And Catholic Crusader, whoever you are, if you want to join us on here live and have a conversation on live, if you're able to do that, feel free. The link's, uh, pinned in the comments, and so you can feel free to join us. But we're going to try to answer this question here because I think it's a good one.

He's come on to, uh, to my channel and Kyle's prolifically.

Okay. So, with him. Yeah.

Excellent. So, yeah. So, let's look at this 1 Corinthians 11. And he's, he's, he's honing in on verse 29, which happens quite a, uh, quite a ways down from even more of the context that we have. So, we want to bring it back up to start. It starts in verse 23, the context of this passage. "For I have received of the Lord that which I delivered unto you: That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread. And when he had given thanks, he he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." I think once again, we're, if we looked at the Lord's Supper, which is what he's, he's, uh, reminding us here, he's showing that it's done in remembrance. We see the same thing in Luke's passage in the Lord's Supper. And so, the, the emphasis is already on something that's happening in remembrance. So, we're looking at it from a symbolic standpoint. And then in verse 25, he says, "After the same manner also he took the cup when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament of my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." So, again, we have another "in remembrance of me." And what they're drinking here is the cup. The cup is the emphasis in this, uh, the Lord's Supper. It's not the blood, but the cup, which is the, uh, in it is the New Testament in his blood. And then notice in verse 26, it starts to get interesting. He says, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." Notice the emphasis here on what is happening on the eating and drinking. He doesn't say as often as you eat this flesh and drink this blood. He puts the emphasis on the literal elements as what they are. As the eating is the bread, and the drinking is of the cup. He doesn't even say the liquid. He says the cup. So, if we were to take this literally, then he would have to drink the cup. But, but that gets confusing. So, then he says, "Do this the Lord's death till he comes." And so, it's a proclamation showing the Lord's coming and his return. This is again something we're doing in remembrance until Jesus returns. Verse 27, "Whoever, whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup," again, the emphasis is on the literal bread, not flesh. "And drink this cup unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." And then he says, "But let a man examine himself, so that let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." And that's where we get here with Catholic Crusader's passage. And so, he jumps all the way down there, "not discerning the Lord's body." Nowhere in that context do we see anything of literal transubstantiation. Nowhere do we see Paul teaching that they're denying that the literal elements change into the body and blood of Jesus. Over and over again, he's talking about remembrance, remembrance. And then he says, "eating the bread." Eating the bread. The, the reality is, what they could be guilty of is by doing it in an unworthy manner. Meaning, these are people who have unconfessed sins, that are living in a life that's not glorifying Jesus Christ, and they're going to the Lord's Supper in a way that's profaning it because of what it represents, and doing this in, in remembrance of me. What do you, what would you say to that, Chris?

Uh, and really, this goes, here's how it does tie into chapter 6. If you read chapter 6 literal, then of course you're going to have his view of those, those verses that we just read. If you're from our point of view, if we are reading it as symbolic in chapter 6, then verse 29 here is a way of, and, and the ones that come after it, is our way of saying, and the caution that we would give in churches is, don't go through the motions of this. If, if you're in church and, and communion is something that's going on, you don't just jump in because everyone else is doing it. If you don't even discern what this is about, then don't partake of it. You make a mockery of it, ultimately. So, [right?] if, if you don't see anything in his death and his resurrection and the offering of his own body and blood for your sin and the conquering of, of death and sin, then why are you partaking? You're just playing fast and loose with something that is of no relevance to you. So, there, there then is the caution, and God would take that quite seriously to the point that there would be consequence to it, potentially. So, uh, you, again, it depends on how you're going to read chapter 6 is going to be the way that you're going to read 1 Corinthians 11.

Right. Yeah. Well said. I think, and hopefully, Catholic Crusader, that kind of gives you a little bit of some information there, you know, and that's a passage that a lot of people will go to. They'll jump over to what Paul said and completely skipping, you know, the, skipping the John 6 and then skipping the Lord's Supper supper. We'll just go here to what Paul's saying in the context of a letter that he's writing to Corinthians who were very misbehaved. They were very carnal-minded. They were doing, they were doing a lot of wrong things inappropriately. So, getting drunk and coming together and, and doing all sorts of things that Paul's having to correct, which is, is, which is a good segue into just making a side comment, like this is why we don't just trust the early church writers just simply because they were closer to the source. Because even in the day of the apostles, of the earliest church, we see that they were already having issues that needed to be corrected, and they needed to have instruction on what they were supposed to do for practice and not to do. That's why many of the epistles in the New Testament were written to correct false practice, bad practice, and bad doctrine. So, I think that was, it's a good sideway or segue to make that. And, and I think it is important too for us to remember something that there are, are there are passages that we find, and they're, they're plentiful about things that are make or break the difference between a believer and a non-believer, and they're really not difficult to track down. I would say, and I know that you would agree with this, the idea of whether or not Jesus is talking about literal flesh and blood and his literal flesh and blood about the consumption of it is a pretty major topic. So, the idea that it's only confined to a, a verse that could be understood in one of two ways in a gospel, but never really picked up and elaborated on in the epistles, is kind of odd, because the epistles were put there for practice. Here's what it is to be a believer, and here's how to put your belief into practice, and here is the correct way for us to walk and to believe, and here's how a person becomes saved. And yet, this is something that is not discussed other than right here. You, this is really not even an apologetic for, like you say, literal flesh and blood or transubstantiation or any of the rest of it. It's about the person discerning whether or not what they're doing is something valid.

Right.

So, again, Paul has ample opportunity, and the Holy Spirit could have moved upon him to settle this issue with, with really no equivocation. And yet, we don't have any of that. But like much of Catholicism, we don't have anything written for us that tells us about the establishment of a priesthood and the authority of that priesthood and all the rest of it that really gives rise to all of what we're discussing here. We believe that we're having this discussion because people believe that a group of people have the ability and no others do to say what's right and wrong in the scripture. It's really not up for us to look at it and come to a determination whether or not what we're being told is accurate biblically. We just have to believe what the church tells us, and it's not open to discussion.

Yeah, I think that's a good point. Right. The, a lot of it is whether or not the church says it, therefore it is. And, you know, they'll go all, all over the place with different debates, but the only reason they believe what they believe, most Catholics, is because the church told them that. And they'll act like it's just our personal opinion of what he's saying. It's like, no, everything is spoken in context, whether audibly or written in context. Everything exists in a context. And so, to understand what it means, you have to understand that context. And so, that's what we're, that's what we're doing in John 6. And so, there's a couple things that they'll, they'll typically do when they're in John 6. And so, we've already emphasized how the, the, the whole pattern here is believing, believing on Him. We saw it in verse 29, "believe on Him whom He sent." We see it in verse 34, "he that believeth on me shall never thirst." And then the contrast with the, the "believing not" in verse 36. And then we see it again in verse 40. "And this is the will of Him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." Now, this would, this would seemingly contradict a later passage that he says in over in, in verse, or later in the verse 50s where he says, uh, "Unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you have no life in you." Right? So, which is it? Unless you eat of his flesh and blood, you have no life in you, or unless you believe, you're not going to have eternal life? So, there's a contrast here. And, and I've talked to some Catholics, and they'll say, well, you have to have both. You have to believe it is that, and then you have to actually do that. The problem is, is that if you're saying that to have eternal life, I have to do the work of taking the wafer or going to the place where I can get that wafer and drink that wine, then I have to do now a work to get my salvation, to have eternal life. No matter how you shape it up, whether it's the initial time or first time, there's something now I have to do to receive eternal life that requires a work for me, which the Bible condemns having to work for our salvation. Because it's by grace through faith in Christ, not of any works, so any man should boast, not even any righteous works that we do, as Paul tells us in Titus. It's us accepting by faith this free gift of God's grace, our salvation. And so, you know, that, that's one of the contrasts you would have with that. But the emphasis so far has been on belief. Belief. And it's belief prior to.

And think about this too, because most people don't even really stop to think about it. There are two elements that are being taken here: flesh and blood. You know, cup and bread. When we go through in church, if we, if we go through mass and we go up for communion, you're receiving the wafer, but you're not receiving the cup. So, anybody who, who believes this in a literal sense would have to say, you're withholding something that is for me, the difference between eternal life and eternal separation from God. You're withholding the cup from me. And they'll say, well, the blood is involved in the wafer, that's the way it's constructed, and that God does this through, you know, through the whole process of transubstantiation, or somehow they've got to come around to saying, well, the two have been combined into one. Okay. But that's not what we find in the text. That's what the church has to teach in order to make it still work. But you can't have a biblical reason for that. We have to rely on the church tradition at that point, which speaks louder in this case than the scripture speaks. Much louder, in fact.

100%. I'm going to actually read a couple things of what the catechism says on that, too. But before I do that, everybody who's watching live or on replay, the week that this comes out, I want to invite you to come check out the online Apologetics Bible College. It's open for enrollment just a few times throughout the year, and right now it's open for enrollment. So, a lot of you who don't know, we created about three years ago a Bible college just like a college you would have in the sense of going to any other university where you take a number of different courses and work toward a program of study and get a certificate of achievement. And you could take all the different courses that we have, all whatever time frame you want, without any time delay, without any restrictions, and, and there's no deadlines. And so, there's worksheets for each of the courses. You fill them out, you submit them in, you can go get a certificate of achievement to one of those programs of study. I'm going to throw a link up here so that you can check it out. If you want to come join us, it's at philippians19.org/enroll. And so, if you have any questions on that, send me a DM on Instagram or send me an email, and we can have a little bit more chat on that. But don't forget to come check that out. It's going to be closing towards the end of the week. And so, let's go ahead now and get back into the Eucharist.

So Chris, I want to look at just a couple. I have a bunch of different things that the catechism says on the Eucharist and why this is such an important topic for us. And so, the Eucharist in the catechism, it says here that in, let's look at a couple of them here. 1367, it talks about the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice. The victim is one and the same. The same now offers through the ministry of priests who then offered himself on the cross. It's offered in an unbloody manner. And then, [snorts] in 1371, the Eucharist sacrifice is also offered for the faithful departed who have died in Christ but are not yet wholly purified. This brings in purgatory. [snorts] And this, the, the sacrifice or the Eucharist itself is in 1378. We see that they worship the Eucharist, and the sac, the Eucharist itself, though, becomes this, becomes this, uh, replacement or not really a replacement, it becomes this going back in time to the actual sacrifice. So, a lot of times in the past, Protestant theologians and apologists have have kind of, uh, misrepresented the Catholic argument in that sense. They don't necessarily see it as a resacrificing of Jesus. They see it as a representing of the one sacrifice of Jesus. So, you, you get into this time, time warp thing, which is a lot of philosophical type language, which priests often go to with their seminary. They go to study philosophy for a number of years. They love Thomas Aquinas, who's big on philosophy. A lot of the early church writers would quote different philosophers. But there's this idea that you can go back in time to the Eucharist and then participate in Calvary with Jesus in the Eucharist itself. And so, this goes, this goes beyond just looking at the literal interpretation here of John 6, because we have a lot of, we have a lot of problems. If I have to take the bread to get eternal life, then how many times do I have to do that? And why is it once enough? Do I got to continue to take it over and over? Jesus didn't say that. He never said you have to continually take it. So, now we have extra-biblical traditions that somehow have to come in here to, to give this idea that this has to be perpetuated throughout our life here on earth. And then, then we still go to purgatory after eating Jesus all this time. We still go to purgatory, and they can still have masses and, and eucharists for us to, in our time in purgatory. So, when you really start breaking this down, it gets very confusing. This is why Jesus is putting the emphasis on belief, because it's spiritual. In verse, in verse 47, he goes in John 6 back to belief. In verse 51, he talks about being the, the living bread which came down from heaven. And then he says, "If any man eats this bread," which bread? The living bread. The Eucharist is not a living bread. The living bread is the bread who represents Jesus Christ. The same, the same individual that said, "I am the light of the world. I am the vine. I am the door." And so, that's that bread. It's Him, He Himself that it's representing. And I think when you look at these passages away from the lenses of Catholicism and you just look at them as what they are, you can understand this in, in its context. What do you think about that, Chris?

Uh, I think it's important that what you did was read from the Cath, uh, from the catechism. Uh, that's why it's so important for us. So, let's just, you know, stop here, take a pause, take a breath, and then let's just make an observation. What Jesus says is pretty rudimentary in, in, uh, John 6. He makes some statements, but he goes into none of the mechanics of it. He doesn't explain how it would be done through the ages like what you just read. That is solely completely absolutely dependent on the teaching of the church. There's no biblical case for it. So, what you had was it built after the fact, elaborating back on a literal representation of John 6, where we would say, "Wait a minute, that's, that's like trying to chop down the tree from the top branches." If we want to go ahead and find out how this whole discussion should take place, are we talking literal or symbolic in John 6? Because until we can establish that, then we're going to get to the next step. If we can somehow come to the conclusion that it's literal, then there's nothing in the text that tells us from that point on the mechanics of it. We get that through the catechism, which has changed radically from the earliest of writings that we have. If we find those writings trustworthy, it's really evolved over time, which if it was really something that was a make or break heaven or hell kind of thing, you wouldn't let the church kind of languish in error for a thousand years.

And yet, [clears throat] here we are.

That's good. Yeah, Chris, it looks like we got Catholic Crusader who wants to join us on live. So, let's see if we can bring him up.

All right. Can you hear me? Hey, go ahead and introduce yourself. What's your name and how long have you been a Catholic?

Uh, my name is Ryan. I, I've been a Catholic, uh, pretty new. Uh, like I'm going through OCIA, you know. So, I mean, I just, you know, I've been kind of interested watching these YouTube videos and everything trying to discern, uh, what, what is really being said in the Bible and the church teaching. So, I'm kind of here to, to learn, but also I, I just don't think that a lot of times the Catholic position is very well represented just from what I've been told and what I've kind of intuitively seen.

Yeah. So, did you have a question about something you're reading in John 6?

Uh, in John 6 spec, one thing I kind of want to bring up is like, I think in the Greek, it starts off, uh, Jesus is saying like, uh, chewing the bread, and then it changes like from 6:54 onwards to gnawing the bread, which, which I think is a pretty important distinction.

Which kind of alludes to it being the real presence, I would say.

Okay. So, now, this is a, a typical thing that in Catholic apologetics that they'll use. They'll go to the Greek and they'll say, see, he's using different Greek words here, and it's getting more intense as, as he's explaining it. You know, not only do they eat it, then they chew on it, they gnaw on it. And that just shows they're trying to say that that shows the literalism. Well, the, the author, right, John, is still writing in symbolic format. He's emphatically symbolizing these things by using literal words. He still has to use literal words to represent the symbolism that he's speaking. So, the fact that the Greek words have that much emphasis to them doesn't make it all of a sudden literal. What it does is it emphasizes the symbolism as he's going through the level of, of, of importance for for eating or studying, believing is what it's working. Eating is believing. And so, he's, he's showing here the emphasis is on believing in Jesus and who he is. It's not showing a literal interpretation in the sense of that this is Jesus that they're literally eating, because that's not been solved yet. Does that make sense?

Right. Right. I, I think that, like, to more supported is how the early church would have continued the act of communion or the Eucharist, because I mean, I, I mean, even in the Bible, there's like 1 Corinthians 10:16, I think, where it's Paul saying, uh, he's like blessing the bread, I think, before they do the breaking of the bread, and that's like taking out the Eucharist, and, and that kind of practice would be continuing onwards. And also Jesus in John 6, I think, blesses it and like trans, uh, transubstantiates it would be the argument.

Yeah. So, John 6, he wouldn't do any kind of transubstantiation. There's no, there's no, that doesn't show up in there. Um, 1 Corinthians 10, I'm not sure.

I think it was, we've already read that part. That's where Paul, yeah. Paul talks about.

10:16 though is a different, it's when he's like blessing the bread, like that's the transfiguration.

Transubstantiation part.

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion or the *koinonia* of the fellowship of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion with the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Israel after the flesh are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? What say I then that that which is sacrificed to an idol is nothing? Or

What which is offered as sacrifice to idols is anything? But I say to you, I say in verse 20, he says that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils and not of God. And I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils. You cannot be partakers of the Lord's table and the table of devils. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy, or are we stronger than he?

So that passage again is involved in a huge context of itself. But right away, when we look at it, we're seeing the contrast here in verse 20. Those who are drinking the, or verse 21, the cup of devils and the cup of the Lord. And so, are they literally drinking the blood of devils? Or are they, if they are, they're no more drinking the literal blood of devils than they are the literal blood of Jesus. There, the emphasis is not on the blood, they're drinking the cup. The cup is the emphasis. And having it at the Lord's table here is not necessarily having to do with a reference to the Lord's Supper. This is just, uh, it's not, it's not specifically representing that at all.

Well, I think it's saying that, like, I mean, you can't just take it symbolically. You have to have real meaning behind it. Like, it's not the cup of demons, or you can't take it like unworthily and stuff. In that same kind of vein, >> right? Which we would agree with. You, you don't go to the Lord's Supper or something of this nature and just do it flippantly. You have to have some level of respect for it. You have to have some respect for what it means and represents. Not that it literally becomes the thing that it represents, but that it represents that thing. And so that's what Paul's teaching here and all throughout. He's talking about we become. When he's talking about here, the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The communion, the fellowship of the body of Christ. He's talking about having fellowship with him. And so the context here is against idolatry that they were, that they were endangered of. That's why he talks about in verse 14, just before this, where he says, "Dearly beloved, flee from idolatry." These and John gives the same warning in 1 John 5:21. So that's kind of the contrast of what he's talking here, the cup of devils versus the cup of the Lord and our fellowship with that. Because remember, and even all the way back to Matthew 16, where Jesus is talking right where he's at in Caesarea Philippi, he's at a place of incredible worship of satanic type things and Pan worship and devils and things. And so he's contrasting again that he's going to conquer Satan. He's going to build his church on that rock that's right there, that location geographically that they were having all the devil worship and sacrificing things to demons. That was where he was going to do it. So the contrast throughout the teaching is is that which is of the Lord's and that which is of the devil. What do you, what do you have anything to add to that, Chris?

Um, more just going back to chapter six, because once again, if there's a change in the language, and that's significant about transubstantiation and the rest of it, once again, that is only going to make a difference if the audience is the church. He's not talking to the church in chapter six. When Paul picks it up in 1 Corinthians 11, he's talking about what happened in the upper room. And so that was when he started to talk about that too. So the change in language in chapter six just assumes that Jesus isn't really addressing the audience there as the primary hearer. That would only have relevance to the church.

So >> Paul in, in, uh, 1 Corinthians 10:16, he's like addressing the church. And also in 1 Corinthians 11, I would say. >> Sure. That's why I don't believe that Jesus is a change of the, of the Greek is, is, uh, implying any kind of transubstantiation because, uh, Jesus is not talking to the church in John 6. He's talking to the assembled people there, the Jewish people that had been following him the day before. And the, the, the two things are, are completely different. So when Paul makes reference to what Jesus did, he's talking about what Jesus spoke in the upper room when he, when he offered that. He's not talking about what Jesus was mentioning in John chapter 6. They're two separate events.

>> So, so I would also argue then, in the early church, when, I mean, there was pretty much universal agreement about real presence in the Eucharist. I mean, was that always corrupted? Or do we, like, disregard the early church?

>> So, we're trying to stay into the scripture in our discussion today so that we can kind of keep everything on task. But to kind of give you a short answer to your question is, is no. There's documents that we have, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Augustine, Justin Martyr, Origen, Ignatius. There is, there is no indication that they believed in a transubstantiation, much less real presence. And the, and the argument really today too, Ryan, is not so much whether there was real presence. The argument is transubstantiation because at the Council of Trent, the Catholic teaching made it very clear that if you deny transubstantiation, you're a heretic. You're anathema. And so that, that's the language that they use. It's not necessarily a spiritual or real presence that they were arguing against. They were saying if you don't agree with the way we see it as transubstantiation, where the elements and the substances and the accidents and things change and certain things stay the same, it's a miracle you have to believe, but you can't see with your eyes, which defies the rules of a miracle. All the miracles we saw Jesus do, you could literally see and then you could have faith in them. The blind man began to see, right? And the, and the sea, the sea was literally split in two. You could see the sea of, of, and split in two in the time of Moses. And so again, this is that language that you see. But the early church did not all teach that. Um, a lot of them spoke of it symbolically or spiritually in that sense or as a >> The church fathers you named did though. No, I mean, that's how they practiced it, right? Augustine, Ignatius, Origen. >> No, that's that's not a, it's just, it's just not there. Um, >> The Smyrnaeans and also >> Yeah, let me, yeah, Ignatius. There's, there's popular quotes, Ryan. I think you, you should be aware of this too, is that Roman Catholics take the early church writers and they read into it their own meaning and interpretation as well. It's not like they hold the rights to the early church. You, you know, if you're, if you're reading your Bible and you're studying your Bible, you go to the original Greek and Hebrew. You have different apps that help you to do that and understand what those words were translated. The early church wrote in Greek and Latin. So who are you trusting to translate that to the English to you to give you the proper meaning that they didn't mistranslate things so that it looks more of a, a Catholic interpretation?

>> Well, but I think it was never understood that way. I mean, through say, 1500 years or so, like the Orthodox and Catholic Church, I don't think they ever understood it as symbolic.

>> So, so let me read you this, and this is all taken from newadvent.org, exposition at Psalm 999 by Augustine. You think you would trust Augustine? >> Yeah. Okay. >> New Advent, too. Make sure you point out that New Advent is certainly not a Protestant, uh, website. >> Right. Yeah. It's from a Catholic source. So, John 6:54. And so, he's, he's writing now, Augustine. He says, "Some disciples of his, about 70, were offended and said, 'This is a hard saying. Who can hear it?' And they went back and walked no more with him. It seemed unto them hard that he said, 'Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you.' They received it foolishly. They thought of it carnally and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts of his body and give unto them. And they said, 'This is a hard saying.' It was they who were hard, not the saying. For unless they had been hard, for unless they had been hard and not meek, they would have said to themselves, 'He says not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein.' They would have remained with him, softened, not hard, and would have learned that from him which they who remained when the others departed learned. For when the twelve disciples had remained with him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by his words and turned back. But he instructed them and says unto them, 'It is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit and they are life.' John 6:63. Understand spiritually that I have said. You are not to eat this body which you see, nor drink this blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery spiritually understood. It will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood."

>> So this is, okay. Augustine is talking about understanding the words that Jesus was speaking in their spiritual sense, not something that is literal transubstantiation. He's not talking here of the literal flesh. >> Right. I mean, I don't want to focus too much on just like Augustine's personal view. I, I think he didn't really deny that there. I mean, that didn't sound like denial to me. >> Yeah. So, again, we could go back and forth with a lot of these early church writers, but the, the reality is is that they were not all unanimous. And I don't want to, I don't want to take up time reading long paragraphs because sometimes they're very challenging.

>> I would say they are from what I've looked at, but man, yeah, I don't think that's the core argument, I would say. >> Right. Yeah. If you want to send me a DM, I can, or I could post them here in the comments and we could, I could send you some more of the information that we have on our website, what the early church wrote on that subject. But for today's video, we're trying to look at the scripture because ultimately the same source that these guys are using is the same source you and I have access to today. So if we can go to the scripture, this the same thing they're doing. And so that's what we're trying to do here in looking at John chapter 6 and then a couple of the other passages related. Does that make sense?

>> Well, I, I think it just shows that, I mean, at least the, the act that Jesus like, you know, when he says the true vine, the true door, it's not like a tradition to keep to keep going. But with the, the true bread, I mean, that was continued by Paul. >> What do you mean? >> To, to like eat the bread and the wine? >> Partake. We're partaking in the Lord's Supper. That is a, >> right. Yeah. That it's one of the diff, that's one of the two ordinances for the church. Water baptism and the Lord's Supper. So that's something that >> The seven sacraments would be like through faith and then, you know, you have to go through the seven sacraments for salvation, kind of. >> So that's Catholic theology. Yeah. That's not biblical Christianity. The seven sacraments are not, are not something we have. For example, the, the sacrament of confirmation. That's nowhere in the scripture. Um, that happens after baptism. So, those aren't biblical things. We're not looking at these as sacraments. We're looking at them as ordinances given to the church to participate and do until the, proclaim until the Lord comes. That's why we have the Lord's Supper to remember what Jesus did, but to also do it in proclaiming the Lord's return. And then water baptism, that's what's given to the church in the scripture.

>> But you agree with, like, water baptism isn't a work, right? >> Yeah. So water baptism is a work. Yeah. But again, >> It comes through faith, right? >> Ryan? We're, we want to focus on the Eucharist. We don't want to go. We don't want to go. We'll have another one. >> Be a work. It would be through faith. >> So if you had to go physically eat the Eucharist or go to it to receive it, then it would require a work. But it, so the Eucharist wrapped up in the Catholic Mass becomes even more complicated because Jesus here just says, "You have to eat this, this flesh and drink this blood." But now the Catholics say, "The priests say, 'Well, only after certain words by a Catholic priest who's ordained by Catholics says those things.'" Now, so now you have restrictions being put up. So now you're, you're putting a barrier between me coming to Jesus Christ by belief and having faith in him. Now I have to come to through the priests, the clergy, to be able to consume this wafer to have eternal life.

>> In scripture, like, it's only Paul and the, the presbyters who are giving out the Eucharist. They're like, they're the only ones qualified, right? >> No. Everybody participated. >> Everybody can give the Eucharist? >> Yeah. Well, we don't call it the, we don't call it the Eucharist. The Eucharist is a transliteration of a word, thanksgiving. Eucharist. >> I can call it communion or thanksgiving or whatever. >> Yeah. So, they did the Lord's Supper in remembrance of him. Anybody could do that. Any fellowship. There's no biblical command or teaching that says that it has to happen to only certain men for only priests or anything of that nature. And you know, you should know too that it says in about the Eucharist in the Catechism 1364 that the work of our redemption is carried out. That the work of our redemption is carried on and we break the one bread that provides the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, the food that makes us live forever in Jesus Christ. So they see the Eucharist as a work of our redemption. That the work of our redemption is carried out in the participating of the Mass in the Eucharist.

>> Well, I mean, you're, you're saying like anyone can, but I mean, [snorts] I, I think there's like a precedent, right? Like, like women can't be priests, or I mean, stuff like that. Like there's certain, like, uh, you know, specifications to be like in charge of the church. >> Yeah. There's rules, there's authority put up in the, in the local congregations of the church. Yeah. >> But as far as participating >> Kind of. >> Yeah. Participating. Go ahead, Chris. >> Yeah, interesting. When you, the only two places that you see any mention of any kind of hierarchy is, uh, is Titus and, and, uh, First Timothy. Those the only places that you find them there. Only those two that are mentioned. So bishops, in English, it's, uh, it's bishops and deacons. Uh, interestingly enough, those men were married. And there's nothing about any, any, uh, Eucharistic work in any of what they do. It really only goes into their characteristics, who they are by reputation more so than any of their function. So that's why it's an interesting thing that we're getting into this. We've moved very far away from literal chapter six. Now we're starting to get into the mechanics of how does it all work in the modern church. But that's nowhere near what chapter six was talking about. And as far as the, uh, the people that would be the presbyters or any of the other, the other offices that are mentioned, there is no priesthood that's mentioned in the actual scripture that is supposed to be doing the kinds of things that are that we're discussing here of transubstantiation, that it needs to come through one particular agency within the church. That's all stuff that that has been added after the fact. And we have to go to the church as the source of it. But that's not something that we can go to the text and find. So unfortunately, we're starting to argue way, way up the tree rather than looking at the foundation.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Because if John 6 is disproven, then there is no teaching that this is his literal flesh and literal blood. >> Well, but I mean, he says it's his body and his blood. >> Yeah. Well, >> He said he also said he's a shepherd. He said we're sheep. And he said he's a door. So he does that. That's it's symbolic language in all of the "I ams." >> Right. And this is, and that's not only where he speaks in symbolism and that has graphic, forceful language, right? He also says in Matthew 5:29-30, "Cut off your right hand." He says in Luke 14:26, "Hate your mother and father." In Matthew 8:22, he says, "Let the dead bury their own dead." In Matthew 5:13, "You are the salt of the earth." We don't make the earth salty. And then Matthew 6:22, he says, "The eye is the lamp of the body." But the eyes aren't light bulbs. >> Right. >> Right. So he speaks in forceful. >> That's what I'm saying though, that this tradition was it's important that this wasn't just like symbolic. I mean, we still do the Lord's Supper. I mean, this is like, that's why I bring up the church is important. I think also the continuation of it. >> Yeah. [snorts] It's the Lord's Supper. And so what we're not arguing whether or not the Lord's Supper should be something celebrated within the church or done in remembrance. What we're arguing is whether it's a literal, that wafer and that wine literally become the flesh and blood of Jesus. So that's kind of the, the argument.

>> Yeah. And, and we should also throw in that that, um, in chapter six of John, um, we don't have any record of things that they were drinking. It was only that they had made the fish and the, uh, the bread into, it was just the multiplication of that. Nothing was mentioned about of any drink. Then he starts talking about that in chapter six. But when we start to get into modern times, once again, that it, when, when we get into the upper room and what Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 11, uh, or in the gospel, any of the gospels that covers the upper room, he's at that point doing the cup and the bread. And so at that point, they are really going over what was a Passover meal. That's why he was there in Jerusalem at the time. And nowhere in the Passover would they have ever consumed the blood of the lamb. That would have been again, the kind of an offense against God's command to partake in the Passover meal that if they drank blood, they would be on the outside looking in and worthy of death. So, you know, once again, if we're going to use him as the Passover lamb and that that somehow we're supposed to look at him in that same way. Well, blood was never consumed as part of the Passover.

>> Yeah. Well, that, that's why I'm saying, I mean, we have to have the church because, I mean, I wouldn't say that scripture is very clear necessarily, like, I mean, what type of cup do we use? What type of, I mean, what type of, uh, wine do we use? What percent of wine? I mean, I mean, you would have to kind of rely on tradition to upkeep that, and that's why having a, a church sort of an infallible church would be important, I think. >> Yeah. So Brian, you're opening up another topic of >> I know I'm getting it. I mean, it's bigger than >> These are important conversations. You're abs, you're right. You're absolutely right. We're just >> I think we're, we're arguing something that really doesn't matter because the church or the Bible doesn't give us those specifics. If we have to lean on somebody to tell us, >> then we're, we're leaning on somebody else's opinion or some tradition, but we're not taking it from the scripture. If we're starting to talk about, well, what cup do you use? What does it have to be made out of? And what kind of wine and what's the percentage and all that stuff? The Bible doesn't tell us any of that stuff. So anything after that is opinion.

>> Well, that's why we need tradition. I mean, how, how was it done all this time? I mean, I mean, if we look at it, it was understood as the real presence. >> So, Ryan, just to kind of summarize it up for you, we're not against tradition. What we're against is tradition that contradicts God's word or tradition that becomes salvific in nature. So you can have different traditions, different, different fellowships, and different people all around the world. Even different Catholics themselves have different rites within Catholicism and have different traditions and how they practice their Catholicism. You can have different traditions. The reality is is it comes down to the very core of the argument here in John 6: Did Jesus speak literally or did he speak symbolically? And so we're arguing that he spoke symbolically because when you try to make it literal, now you got all this complicated stuff. How do we do it? How does it happen? Who gets to say the prayer over it? Who gets to ordain this particular person to be able to do it? And does that mean in an area where there's no Catholic priest to to make the, the, the wafer, that now they don't have eternal life? Because in one side of the mouth, Catholics will say, "Well, no, you can by following a good conscience in, in catechism, you can, you can still have eternal life." But then Jesus said here, "Unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you have no life in you." So this is a salvific statement. So either, either those who aren't eating the Roman Catholic transubstantiated Eucharist are going to be condemned, or or they're not. So this, that's why this is such an important issue: is he speaking symbolically or literally?

>> Well, I mean, I'm, I'm saying it's literal because, I mean, it's said as a literal statement, but I mean, that's why you can't just rely on scripture because, I mean, then you, you can't come to a conclusion. I mean, you have [snorts] to look at like 1 Thessalonians 2:15 where it says like there's oral tradition. >> Brian, I'll tell you what. Um, because you're going on all my favorite passages and stuff and I'd love to talk to you all in incredible depth on this, the traditions and things like that. We have other teachings on our website. We have a, I don't know if you know, on our, our YouTube channel, we have a series, "Catholicism Revealed." We talk about traditions. We go to the places 1 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Thessalonians 3, and we look at those different passages too, in 1 Corinthians 11 where he mentions the word tradition, and we talk about that some there. So you can look that up. But I think for now, we're just going to keep into John 6 and keep talking about the Eucharist specifically. So if you have, do you have one last, last question for us, or otherwise, we're going to try to pull some from the comments. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. One last question. One last question. Uh, so, so do you believe taking the Lord's Supper is salvific? >> Do I believe taking? So, in other words, if you don't take the Lord's Supper, you lose your salvation? >> Right? >> No, it's not salvific. No, it can't be. Yeah. All right. Well, hey, Brian, I appreciate you joining us live and and having the courage to come on here. It was good to talk to you. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> All right. We're going to jump over to some more of the, the comments over here.

>> See, there's a question that keeps getting asked, but we've already covered it, and it's why all the, the, the, what is the, the Catholic view of all this? How come it's not covered elsewhere in scripture? That was a question that I asked pretty early on, that if something as important as this, as a literal [clears throat] chapter 6 of John, it would be covered in detail in other places because chapter six, let's just answer the question. Chapter six doesn't deal with any of the mechanics of the Eucharist or of communion, whatever you want to call it. It's just a statement: "Eat my flesh, drink my blood." No mechanics. We're not told about how it all functions. If there was something more to be added about the mechanics of it, like we find, we only get that through church tradition. And oftentimes, you will find church tradition, or not church tradition, but tradition itself, spoken against negatively >> because they're things that people believed, but they're incorrect. So oftentimes in Jesus's own writing, we're going through the sermon on the mount, he basically says in a number of places, "You have heard it said, but I say to you," because they had their traditions, and their traditions were wrong. >> So ultimately, he was going back and and resetting it to the original intent found in the law about, "You have heard it said, you shall not murder," but I say to you, if it's in your heart, you've done it. He gets back to the original intent, not what the tradition held. So the word of God has to be what holds sway over whether or not a tradition is accurate and trustworthy, or if it's just the imagination of men.

>> Yeah, that makes so much sense. The, we got one in here. Let me see from Kelly Powers over at Bine Perspective Apologetics. And he makes a good point that, like you said too, Chris, there, the, the teaching of transubstantiation is not taught. If it was, if it was as important as it is to Roman Catholicism today, it's the, the summit of all sacraments. It's, it's, it's, you can't give it better names that they give it. I have a couple of them here somewhere, um, that they give it. It's, if it was that important, it would be seen throughout the scripture. Paul would have said, "Okay, look, here's the Eucharist. Here's what we're doing. This is the summit of some. When I go to preach the gospel, I bring them the Eucharist, right? Because the Eucharist is largely how they evangelize. When you hear people coming to the Catholic Church, it's because of the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, which most of them don't understand when they come, or it's because of Mary. Those are the two core aspects of why they come to Roman Catholicism. It's not because they read the scriptures and they, and they saw the truth of God's word and they learned who Jesus was. It's because of those two main elements. But if, if it's as important as they say it is, then why don't we see it throughout any of the, literally throughout any of the, the authors of the New Testament?

>> Yeah. And all that Paul ever even does is just quotes Jesus of the actual thing that took place in the upper room, >> not John 6. >> He's talking about what happened in, in later in John's gospel >> when that was all happening. So 13 and 14 of, of the gospel, but it's all upper room. It's the last few hours. And he's only talking about the commemoration of it. >> So, right. Mechanics of it? >> He's a Jew speaking to Jews celebrating the Jewish Passover. And so Catholics often will try to say when Jesus says, "Do this in remembrance of me," they're saying to magically transform this wafer into the flesh of Jesus. But what Jesus, when he said this in the present tense in Luke's gospel, he's talking about the Passover meal, the Seder meal. He's saying, "Do this in remembrance of me," not "Hold up a wafer in remembrance of me." You see? So when we have to, we have to define what this is. And you know, we use that terminology where we say Jesus said, "I am the vine and I am the door." Or, well, they'll say, "Well, over there he said, 'I am,' that over here he said, 'This is my flesh, this is my blood,'" and they say that with their words, they emphasize the "is." But when you go to the actual Greek, it's pretty much the same word, "is" and "am." You know? So when we look at the actual language that, that it's being communicated to us in John's gospel, that's what it is. But I think even more telling is how John doesn't even talk about this in the Lord's Supper. It's only in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John leaves this out. He leaves this part of the Lord's Supper out that the others have. But then Catholics will jump over to John 6 to try to use that to show that they are connected. But we're not seeing the Lord's Supper celebrated here. We're seeing Jesus teaching through one of the "I am" teachings. And, you know, and I think it's telling too, when we go to the Old Testament, there's a couple passages I wanted to bring up for our listeners, this idea of eating the sacrifice. I have it, let's see, in Leviticus. So in Leviticus 6:16-18, it starts off with what is left of it. Aaron and his sons are to eat. Speaking of the sacrifice, it shall be eaten as unleavened cakes in a holy place. They are to eat of it in the court of the tent of meeting. It shall not be baked with leaven. I have given it for their share from my offering, my fire. It is holy like the sin offering and the guilt offering. Every male among the sons of Aaron may eat it in the permanent ordinance throughout their generations, an offering of the Lord. And then in verses 24-29 of Leviticus 6, continues the same speech. He talks about, let's go through, he says, "If anyone touches its flesh before it's consecrated, and when any of its blood splashes on the garments of the holy place, you shall wash it where it's splashed on." Goes on a little bit further, and he says, "But no sin offering of which any of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy place shall be eaten. It shall be burned with fire." So in these two passages here, he's talking about in verse 26, uh, he says, "The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it." And [snorts] so it's eaten in the holy place. So there's this context in the Old Covenant where the priestly tribe that does this, the sacrifice, they can eat part of that sacrifice. And so we see this sort of transfer over to the New Covenant where we all become priests to the Lord, right? We become a royal priesthood, priesthood before God. And the New Covenant, no longer do we have physical sacrifices. We have spiritual sacrifices. And it's in that that we can eat and and consume in that. So you have the literal physical in the Old, but in the New, we have the spiritual. And I think that's an interesting connection when you study from the Old Testament because we, he does this, uh, the author in the book of Hebrews does this too. And, you know, the Catholics will say, I thought I had the quote here, but, you know, a good Catholic will know as far as the representation. Oh, here it is. The representation of of Jesus in the Eucharist and showing that he's being represented there for, not necessarily resacrifice. We want to be fair to what they're, they're trying to argue, but that he's, uh, that he's being represented. It's in one of the catechisms that I had on here, but, um, renews the sacri. So in, let's see, apparently I didn't mark it here. Oh, it's, um, okay. Yeah. 1366. "The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it represents, makes present the sacrifice of the cross, because it is, it is its memorial, and because it applies its fruit." And so, interestingly enough, they say that it's, it's going back. It's representing the sacrifice. And we go to Hebrews 9 and Hebrews 10. And we'll, we'll look at that a couple key points here because they say God is outside of time. I've listened to Catholic apologists all the time. They're like, "Well, God is outside of time." And so he can do whatever he wants. Well, first of all, God cannot do whatever he wants. The Bible's clear about that. God cannot cease to exist. God can also not lie. The Bible's clear about that. So God has limitations. But even more so, God has set limitations for his creation. And so God has has given us instructions and directions. And so that's what we have in the, in the New Testament for us specifically. But he says in, in Hebrews 9:20, he says, "Nor was it that he would offer himself often." So in contrast to the, the offerings that you would have under the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, he wouldn't offer himself often. He says, he emphasizes again in verse, verse 26, that it was once. And then again in verse 28, "Christ also having been offered once to bear all the many." Now, you're going to get this idea. It's once. It was a one-time thing. And then, and then you have it again. He says in Hebrews 10:8-18, but I'll read some highlights. He says, "Sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you have not desired, nor have you taken pleasure in them." Then he goes down here and says, "That by this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Once for all. Verse 12. "But he, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God." Which if somebody's sitting down, that's speaking that their job is done. The task is finished. He's now sitting at the right hand bodily of God. [snorts] And then he goes on again in verse 14, "For by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified." By one offering for all time. There's no language in the New Testament that you go back and represent the sacrifice that he doesn't have to relive it. He's not re-experiencing himself. So we're not going back to Calvary to experience Calvary for ourselves. Jesus bodily is at the right hand of the Father, and that's where he will remain until he returns at his second coming.

>> This is, this is an indisputable biblical fact. So the idea to teach that he can become bodily down into the wafer is blasphemous and completely unbiblical to that degree. What do you say about that, Chris?

>> Which ultimately goes back to one of the observations that that we've made of several different times is that if, if we're taking the model of chapter 6 and making it work universally throughout the rest of the church, then there is an element that's missing in every mass, and that is the blood. Which, first of all, should have been forbidden. And it's only the priest who ever drinks it. They, so he'll, he'll partake of the cup, but the people don't. So they're really missing out on what Jesus says if we're taking it literal. There really is no life in them if they're not partaking of the cup. And you can't tell me that it's combined, or else I'm just having to rely on what the priesthood tells me. But you had mentioned something, and I, I think a lot of people missed this. You talked about the priesthood. It's in First Peter, uh, chapter 1, but you are a chosen generation. You are a royal priesthood. This, I'm sorry, verse, uh, chapter 2. First Peter 2. Um, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, his own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of him who called you out of darkness and into his marvelous light, who once were not a people, but now who are a people of God, and who had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. He's not talking to, he, this whole letter is addressed to, to a very generalized diaspora that's scattered throughout what Paul would have called Galatia, modern-day middle part of Turkey, to the "whosoevers." He's basically talking to men and women alike. There is no specific audience here, but he calls them a royal priesthood. So once again, going back to what you had mentioned about, well, it has to come through a priest. Well, right here, the only priesthood that you ever hear mentioned is here. And it isn't anything about the structure of a church. It's about the church in general. And it really makes no distinction about any qualifications aside from that they're part of the diaspora. And when you, you go into what's there in the, uh, in the beginning of chapter 1, uh, it basically is, here's all the stuff that we have in common. And that's how he starts to lay the groundwork for what he's going to do for the rest of the chapter. This is what makes us common in our beliefs. And it's not written specifically to a quote priesthood. It's written to the diaspora, very general. So by chapter 2, when he starts talking about we're a royal priesthood, or a holy gener, holy, yeah, yeah, um, what I just read, but a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, um, when you start to look at those particular, uh, qualifications, there is nothing that tells you it has to be this person, it has to be that person, they have to meet this qualification. It's very, very general. And if we're a priest in this sense of ministering between God and man, then there's no reason why we would have to say that it requires some church authority to confer only upon a select group that title of priest, because there is nothing in the Bible that talks about a new priesthood with any of its roles and responsibilities. We have that in Leviticus.

>> We have that in the Old Testament. We know that one. And it's there in vivid detail. Isn't it interesting that if we have a priesthood that I would say, if, if the Roman Catholic Church is the genuine church and the only one that God recognizes, then I would say that that priesthood far outweighs in importance the one that we have in the Old Testament. And yet, we have nothing from God spelling out what that priesthood's supposed to be in God's word like we do in the Old Testament. There's no New Testament book of Leviticus. >> Which, if there was a priesthood, there ought to be one. >> Right. Yeah. If God thought it necessary, then why didn't it happen in the New Testament? Exactly. >> Yep. [snorts]

>> Birdie here makes a a good statement here. She's quoting, I guess I'm reading another comment of hers as well on here. A Catholic scholar, she's saying, gives this definition here. So, denying the Catholic transubstantiation. So, that's interesting. Um, Chris, it looks like we have somebody that might want to join us live. Let's see if we can bring them up.

>> Hey, can you hear me? >> Yeah, can you hear me? >> Yeah. Go ahead and give us your name and how long have you been a Catholic. >> So, um, I prefer not to like give out personal information on like just public platforms, but, you know, I'm @PelDoge on Instagram. I've been a Catholic for going on five years now, um, this, this, uh, Easter. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, what's your, your question about John 6 and the Eucharist? >> Well, so it wasn't specifically about John 6. I wanted to add on to, um, is it, it's Chris? So yeah, I wanted to add on to Chris's point with, you know, well, so you made the point about, you know, the Eucharist being offered, or I mean, not the Eucharist, but the, uh, Old Testament sacrifices being offered multiple times, whereas the Eucharist, or I mean, Christ's sacrifice on the cross is offered once. And that's kind of the contrast you're making. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. So the problem is that, so, and this person on there before said the transubstantiation is a later development. So neither of those are necessarily true. The problem is that typically when we define transubstantiation, we define it under like using Aristotle's 10 predicaments. And so substance in that is basically what a thing is in and of itself. Whereas the accidents are like things that typically would distinguish it from other, um, other things of the same substance. So for example, you know, I'm a human, you're a human. That's our substance, right? But we're obviously living in different places. We were born in different times. Um, we're probably, you're probably a different height for me, different weight. Things like that are accidental properties. And there are nine of those. So like off the top of my head, I can probably remember eight of them. It would be like, um, quantity, quality, time, location, position, relation, uh, possession, action, and passion. Oh, I got all of them. Okay. So basically, we, we would say that God [clears throat] uh, or sorry, this is that was kind of a separate thing. So basically, what we would say is that the substance obviously goes from being bread and wine to being the body and blood of Christ, right? And the issue is the reason that I would say that your argument there doesn't work is because, like, we believe that time and location are accidental properties. So the substance of the bread and wine, they, when they transform, they transform into the exact same body and blood of Christ that is being offered to the Father. And so, you know, the, the issue with it is really more of a matter of the, like, the instrumental application of that in our souls, like in our personal lives, you know, because like for the Jews, it was like, you would have to kill another animal in order to have another sacrifice, you know, and so that would have to continue happening. Whereas with Christ, it's obviously different because he offered himself once on the cross, but that has to be applied to us, you know, however many thousands of years later, in whatever location. So that would essentially be applied, and that's how we have our theology around transubstantiation.

>> Yeah. So you're, you're seeing it as a representation. So you're looking at, you're looking at the sense of that you're going back in time to Calvary to participate in the actual event, right? So substantially, it's the same sacrifice, but yes, it is a, it is a different, I mean, obviously it would have to be applied to people at a later time, at a different, you know, location, and so those have to be, that has to be accounted for, you know. >> Right. So this is where time travel and and philosophy starts to take over theology. So >> But sorry, I don't mean to interrupt. >> Go ahead. >> So I mean, the theology around it is like very clear. I mean, if you have, if you have the, you know, the ascending med, so like with the sacrifice, you have basically the ascending mediation of Christ where he offers his body and blood to the Father, right? And they, you would also have that in the emulation and the oblation, right? The killing and the offering of the lamb in the Old Testament to God, right? But then in order for that to be efficaciously applied to the people who are in the congregation in the Old Testament, you would have to eat the lamb, right? So in the New Testament, like logically it follows that you have to eat the body and blood. And I would say that's exactly what's happening. And you can see, you know, you can see in all of the gospel accounts in 1 Corinthians, you know, where Jesus offers himself up on the cross. He specifically uses bread and wine. And we would say that that's, uh, the antitype of Genesis 14:18 with Melchizedek, where, you know, Melchizedek offers up bread and wine to God. And it's like very clear that this is like, you know, "Then Melchizedek brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High." That's verse 18, >> right? We say that that's a type. And you can see that very clearly, I feel like in Hebrews 5:1-6, you know, where he's like, where [clears throat] Paul, I mean, assuming Paul was the one who wrote it, the author of Hebrews essentially, you know, he clarifies that you have the Old Testament sacrifices, which are, you know, animal sacrifices, you know, and then contrasts that with the, um, with the priesthood of Melchizedek. He says, like, Christ, he offered up not the blood of bulls and, uh, lambs, but his own blood. And then he says in another place, "You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek." Right. This like clear contrast between the Old Testament sacrifice and the New Testament sacrifice.

>> Well, if, if I may interrupt you, there's, there's a lot of typology. Yes. In the Old Testament and the New Testament. But I think what's happening is we're stretching things to make them fit in the sense of, you, you see the words bread and wine in the Old Testament. And then

You're automatically assuming that the bread and wine in the New Testament is that bread and wine. But even further than that, you're now saying that they are flesh and blood, which the Old Testament never said.

But to to to go back to your to to your other statement too with as far as the sacrifices of the Old Testament, the Old Covenant, if you were to take by that logic, the same logic that Thomas Aquinas and others have with Jesus in the time warp ceasing to exist, then that means that at that time there's still priests somewhere doing the old covenant sacrifices all the way back in the time of Leviticus because if time ceases to exist, then you can go back and represent those same sacrifices if they needed.

So it's not go ahead. We're not saying it's time travel. I mean we're saying that time is an accident in the situation. So like theoretically, yeah, you like you theoretically could have had a situation where in the Old Testament you could have had priests doing that. Like that's theoretically possible, but it's that's not what happened. Like you have I mean you had a a type and then the antitype. You had the type of the Old Testament lamb and then you have the antitype of Jesus.

So like Yeah. Yeah. And and but and the the the analogy falls flat though because in the Old Testament, they didn't drink the blood. They didn't drink the blood of the lamb. So, and when they ate the lamb, he was cooked. They didn't eat him raw. Are we cooking the the Jesus in the in the wafer? So, you start to see the the loopholes in these these type of things.

But again, you're you're reading into you're reading into the text philosophy, which is what Thomas Aquinus and other early church writers did. To try to explain theology, they had to use philosophy. instead of allowing the divinely inspired scripture to explain it for us.

Well, you have to do that with a lot of stuff. I mean like Aristotle's predicamentals are used to define the trinity. Like if you read through the Capidosian father, that's like their whole argument against the Unomians.

I don't think you have to use it. I think the Bible is really clear that God is three unique persons co-equally co-equally divine, co-equally eternally, co-equal and eternal. So I don't think you have to use any of that philosophy. The scripture lays it out who he is as far as as far as how we are to understand who he is. Remember, we're not to understand go beyond what is written and and revealed of who God is. He's revealed himself and his purpose and his nature in his written word for us.

I don't think that that's a proper reading of 1 Corinthians 4:6. But I'll, you know, so the Okay. So my problem is that you're saying that the trinity is very clear in scripture. I think that it is like there in scripture, right? Right. And I don't I'm not disagreeing with you, but I also think that, you know, there's an equal clarity and even more petristic support for this idea of a sacrifice of the mass both like both in scripture and petristics. I mean, I don't know how else like I you know, I don't know how you're answering this whole thing with mec because like if it's not supposed to represent a sacrifice that Christ is making under the properties of bread and wine that is applied to us in that way, like what what is he saying there?

It's coinia. It's fellowship. It's our fellowship with him of the order of Melkisedc.

That that I don't think that that really answers the question because you know like where do you get the bread and wine from in Melkisedc? Like what does that have to do like do you do you not see that the connection there?

Well, breaking bread and having bread and wine was often something that they would do in the Old Testament. So it it became a Jewish regular thing, but it was often among the different groups in the Old Testament as well. MelkiseDC being the first. Let's remember also Abraham predates the law by 500 years. So the the prohibitions against the consumption of blood and all the rest of it um that's still 500 years down the road when it's codified in law. But the you know the implied the implied things from from Abraham still we are left with the understanding because of what's in the law that the consumption of blood was absolutely forbidden and that's why it was never consumed. the the Passover lamb's blood was never consumed. So, that's the hard fast rule, which really kind of addresses uh John chapter 6.

So, I I appreciate that uh that the caller um can give the the Catholic understanding of transubstantiation and how that works, all the mechanical stuff there. But to be honest, as as you know, as as well presented as it was, it's like reading the fine print in a contract. And we have to go to the church to get that fine print because that fine print is never spelled out in the text itself of the Bible. And this is a very major topic which you would think that the Bible would go exhaustively into explaining, but we don't have that. We have to rely on what the church says happens at transubstantiation. That's really not even hinted at in the text, let alone spelled out expressly, which it should have been.

Well, you do have it spelled out pretty clearly in multiple places, particularly Hebrews, but additionally, you have it in uh 1 Corinthians 10, you know, where he talks about the altar of demons and the altar of God and how you can't like partake of both, right? Obviously, that's an altar of sacrifice. All of these things would have been very clear to any pagan or Jewish, you know, convert. Like, I mean, it wouldn't need to be spelled out as much as something like refuting the Judaizers, you know.

Well, I mean, most of what you had in Corinth is not going to be understanding the Jewish nuances of what is and what is not a kosher sacrifice. So, this is more it's more an answer to what was what was said at uh at it goes along with Acts 15. You're just to abstain from things that were sacrificed to idols and things that were strangled, things that were not cleared of its blood, which is ultimately what Paul's talking about. up. He's having to correct all kinds of error that's happening in uh in Corinth that you got re when you put chapter uh first and second Corinthians together and combine the chapters, you've got more written to one church than all the other churches combined because of all of the spiritual mess that they were into. But Paul's not even dealing with Eucharist here. He's dealing with with the the the pagan practices that they were doing.

Well, I I don't agree with that. So the issue is that so first off I want to be able to say first off that sacrifice was not just a Jewish thing. It would like there's a universal understanding even like in cultures that had no contact with one another that like if you have a god you sacrifice to that god. That's like the universal language of worship in the ancient world. And so it's not you know it's not really something that he would have to spell out differently between Jews and pagans. Like everybody understands you have a priest a victim emulation and oblation. So I don't So and so then you know it comes to you know you talk about the table of the Lord versus the table of demons in 1 Corinthians 6 or in 1 Corinthians 10 and then in the very next chapter you have them going over the Eucharist. So I don't really like I feel like it's pretty clear the table of the Lord is the Eucharist. The table of the demons are like offering sacrifice to demons. I don't

Well, you're you're drawing a false parallel there though because you're saying that the next chapter as if it has significance. the chapters the chapter breaks aren't divinely inspired to begin with. So you just got to follow the theme of what he's saying. So just because he mentions it a little bit earlier and then talks about something similarly related doesn't mean it's it's connected because by that logic you'd have to say that the rock here and that the rock was Christ in verse 4 of 1 Corinthians 10 would be the rock in Matthew 16 is talking about but Catholics won't do that.

That doesn't follow at all. You're talking about the same letter and I mean yeah that doesn't follow at all cuz you're talking goes from no he goes from you cannot uh take the you cannot uh eat from this uh sorry the table of demons and the table of the lord right and then in the next chapter he goes over and explains yeah the table of the lord like he's talk he talks about the eucharist I mean I don't really see how you're how you're not like drawing that conclusion

Well, I was making an analogy of of how you can find words and putting things together. So, yeah, sure. Mark or Matthew is a different word, but it's the same word rock. So, it's the same same understanding. But what but back to your thing, where do you find in the scripture that when he says the table of the Lord, the Lord's table and and taking the table of the devils, where do you find that that is a reference to the Lord's supper?

In the next chapter where he talks about the Lord's supper.

Okay. Where?

In 1 Corinthians 11.

Yeah. Yeah. So, I know where he talks about it. We read it previously with somebody else. But what I'm asking as far as the mention specifically of the Lord's table table.

Oh, sure. No, I mean that I feel like that would just be naturally understood.

So, that's an assumption.

Sure. I mean, it's I mean that's what the entire early church thought. So, I don't know.

You can't you can't say that. The entire early church you read all of them?

I mean, I haven't read every single one.

Okay. Yeah. They're they're pretty clear.

And they had the same access to the same truth that we have to be able to read. And that's what that's what we're looking at.

Yeah. But they also are like the entire church which means that they are you know effectively promised or to at some degree of protection from error. You know I mean if Jesus said that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church whether you believe that's a visible institution or

we made our we made our way back to Matthew 16. You see how it all goes back to the same.

I mean I'm not talking about Peter necessarily. I know, but you made reference to the the gates of hell will not prevail, which was a Jewish idiom talking about the resurrection of believers not being sent to hell. So, I mean, you're bring ahead.

Church is promised like promised some degree of protection so that it will exist for all time until the second coming of Christ. You don't believe that?

The universal church. Yes. Not the Roman Catholic institution.

Right. Right. So, I'm not necessarily talking about the Roman Catholic institution. I'm talking about the like the church in general. If everyone believed this thing that you think is like a like extremely wrong and heretical, then how can you say that Jesus like that his promise didn't fail there?

Yeah. So that's the statement I guess is what is up for contesting. So not everybody believed in transubstantiation. That's that's the error. The transubstantiation was an invention far later and it became more law salvific issue even farther down the road.

Like saying the trinity came later. Like you do realize that that's like the trinity wasn't invented in the first council of concept opal but it was first dogmatized.

So the the the doctrine of the trinity is found in scripture. Whether whether or not it was written about or talked about by men later doesn't negate the fact that it's clearly taught in the scripture. We don't need men to teach us the trinity. It's there in the Bible.

Right. But so is trans like everything you can say about the trinity. I could I could bring it back to transposantiation. I'm you know.

Okay. But you really can't because you can't prove that the literal elements are changing into the body and blood of Jesus but not. So they're changing but they're not. So you can't prove that from the scripture in the text alone. Because if Jes if Jesus says you have to eat me and if at the last supper he's saying unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood and he says do this in remembrance of me. Well, he's offering them that would be the Lord's that would be the Eucharist according to Catholicism. But if that's the case, his in John 7, the he wasn't yet glorified because the Holy Spirit was not yet come. So they're drinking unglorified blood of Jesus at the last supper. And we know that it's not literal because Jesus didn't cut off himself and hand them the literal flesh. And he's not giving them something that hadn't been done yet. He hadn't accomplished the victory on the cross yet. So he's not he's not giving it to them to have as a literal thing.

No. I mean again a lot of that's a straw man of transubstantiation because like you know we we were very clear about likeation equality those are all accidents but we like we don't believe that it would be like Jesus taking a physical piece of his flesh I mean that that's like

I don't think it's a strong man I think as a Catholic that's what I was taught but I learned how to reason and so what I'm saying is if you take it at its word that's what it means if you say that that it becomes the literal flesh of Jesus then somehow The flesh and blood of Jesus was in those elements he gave the apostles at the Lord's supper.

Well, yeah, we believe that. We believe that the the substance transitioned into being the body and blood of Christ when he said that. Yeah.

So, this is this is before he dies on the cross. So, the law of Moses would have been still enacted. So, he was violating the law of Moses by requiring them to drink blood.

Well, no, because it's under the properties of wine.

No, see, that's that's where you have to prove. Where does it say that? Because Jesus says, "I will not partake in the the fruit of this vine until I do it with you in the kingdom." And that happens after they have it and they they they're they're drinking it. And Jesus tells us that they drank the fruit of the vine, not his blood. So they never changed.

Well, sure. I mean, I could make the same argument from like Matthew 6. In Matthew 6:11, you know, Jesus says, "Give me uh give us this day our daily bread." And so the actual Greek translation, the Greek word there is epusion which is like super substantial bread. And so like St. Jerome who translated the Latin Vulgate in the Latin Vulgate, he translates this as super super substantialis. And he actually commented on it in St. Thomas Aquinas's kenna on Matthew 6 and says that this is like the substance that is greater than all other substances, the body and blood of the lord. So I mean you do actually have like change in Matthew 6.

Well, you also have because you wanted to bring up some of the early church writers. So then you also have Clement of Alexandria in his book one instructor 1 chapter 6 he writes the flesh speaking of here of John 6. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit for the flesh was created by him. The blood points us to the word. For as rich blood, the word was has been infused into life. And union of both is the Lord. The food of the babes. The Lord who is spirit of the word, the food that is the Lord Jesus. What is the that is the word of God and the spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified. So I mean you could you

I wasn't trying to go back and forth on church fathers. I mean, obviously if you're I mean, if you've got all the resources in front of you, you're probably going to have a few that sound like they're, you know, that they're disagreeing. And who knows, maybe they actually are. But um when it so like my main point was that you have the word epioion in Greek, right, which is translated as super substantial and or super substantial, but Catholic text.

Where did you go? Matthew 6.

Yeah, Matthew 611. It's the Lord's prayer. It's also the same in uh Luke 11.

Which is an interesting thing. While you're looking that up, Patrick, once again, this this goes back to the same thing that we were talking about with John chapter 6. In order to take what he says about give us this day, he's speaking well past his audience. So the people that are there at the at the uh at the sermon on the mount, he's really not even addressing them because they they wouldn't have the slightest idea of what he'd be talking about there. If he's talking about his his flesh and his blood as we think of it as Eucharist, that's a church thing. He's speaking to people pretty early on in his earthly ministry up in Galilee. And if we're supposed to take that as a as an understanding of transubstantiation that people hearing him would look at one another and not have the slightest idea, not to mention he wasn't speaking in Greek. So, you know, that's it really does assume a great deal to try to make that leap that he's talking about a transubstantiation kind of a view of that daily bread where the people hearing him would understand he's talking he's he's using what they would understand as the daily provision that God gave them in the mana. And so, you know, it's it's it's an interesting again another example of how much needs to be read into the text in order to justify what is the traditional teaching of the church for, you know, since since transubstantiation was offered as the explanation, but it wasn't something that was original.

So then what how would you interpret this though? That's what I'm saying. Like what's your alternative? this daily bread. He's making the same exact um statement about what they had to do by waiting on God daily for provision in the 40 years in the wilderness. They lived on that bread. So his audience knows precisely what he would intend by that if we're taking that as the understanding. So from what you're presenting to us, we have one of two options. Jesus is either talking to a Jewish group of people who understand mana as a daily provision that they had to rely upon God for their sustenance or he's speaking past his audience to the church and explaining something that we would understand as transubstantiation. What sounds more plausible?

Probably one I mean it says give us this day our superal bread.

Yeah. So you're but the the reality is Jesus tells us in verse four of Matthew 4. So just prior to that that man shall not live on bread alone but by every word of the mouth of God. And then he talks about himself being the bread of life in in the John 6 discourse, right? He is the bread of life. So the bread that we're eating is Jesus. The question in his word. The question is whether it's the literal flesh and blood of Jesus or is it not? Because when we look at the flesh that we're eating, we're looking at it from John 1. The word became flesh. And so we're eating the word of God as John and Paul or Jesus teaches in Matthew 4. That daily bread that we're to consume is not the literal flesh and blood of Jesus, but it's the actual word of God who he is. That's our nourishment, our spiritual nourishment.

Okay. So then I'm not understanding why is it called super substantial bread. Like it says they are super substantial bread.

Where where are you seeing this? What verse?

It's verse 11.

Verse 11. Give us this day our daily bread. Yeah. See, I don't have the I don't have the uh the specific Greek on that to even look at that to look at it with you.

However, it again, and this is the problem when it comes to passages like this is we'll find one word and we'll hinge everything off of what one word mean. A lot of times the Greek words have to have their meaning defined by the the context that they're in. Not every Greek word has its own inherent meaning. So, we'd have to look at the context by which it's in. So this could be very much one of those situations.

Well, the word epiion literally translates as above substance.

So I mean it is super substantial bread. I mean sure. No, but you we're saying the same thing. The bread of the bread is the word of God. It's his teaching. It's who he is. So but the question is is does the bread of God that he's speaking of in John 6 turn literally into his flesh? It doesn't say that. It doesn't say here you have to eat the Eucharist.

No, but it says like do Okay. So do you know what substance is? Like substance that literally means what a thing of bread that is above the substance of bread. Right. That that logically that makes sense if it's talking about the Eucharist, right? It doesn't make sense under basically any Protestant idea.

Yeah. And this this absolutely this this argues against that he's talking to his audience there because right after that he says, "And forgive us our trespasses and we forgive those who trespass against us." forgiveness of sin was completely different at their time versus our time.

Sure. Because the the forgiveness of sin comes through the sacrifice of Jesus to them. It comes through the sacrifice of animals that's repetitious. So how much of the Lord's prayer do we say he's not even talking to his audience, but he's talking past them?

Well, sure. I mean, he he talks past them all the time. I don't think that that's really an issue like

Yeah. And we'll not we won't be able to reconcile that because there's no reason for him to address his audience. He said he was there to to to go to the lost house of Israel. That was his audience. He wasn't talking to the church. Now, things that he might have said would have relevance to the church about him offering himself as a as a sacrifice. Yeah, he said that to the disciples. I go and give my life as a ransom for many. That's looking forward. But nonetheless, the the idea that he would have the whole sermon on the mount or select portions of it that I guess we'd have to go to the church, you're you know, the Catholic Church to tell us what parts are literal and what parts are not, what parts are to the audience and what parts are speaking past the audience. But boy, that becomes a really a confusing mess. And so if we just looked at at at that model prayer, which of course Jesus wouldn't have actually prayed himself, he gives it as a model. How much of that stuff would we say has no relevance to the people hearing him in uh in Matthew 6 because it's all part of one dialogue? It's verse it's chapters 5 through 7.

No. Sure. I mean, I'm not denying that. But I mean again he speaks in mysteries like a lot. So I don't I again I I don't see the problem with that. Additionally I did want to point out it was uh I feel like it was a little bit in bad faith to see to say that I was hinging everything on that. I feel like I've made a pretty good point from like Hebrews, 1 Corinthians, etc. Like I don't think that this is nothing. I don't think that I'm hinging everything on Matthew 6 or Luke 11.

Yeah. I didn't mean you specifically individually hinging it. I Catholics will do this. Other people will do this too. They'll find a Greek word and they'll hinge their theology off of it. For example, the the whole passage you see in Matthew 16, that's the that the crux of the Roman papacy. Of course, there's other passages, you know, that they bring in, but without that passage, all the other passages don't exist as far as supporting it.

I don't think that at all, but and the two places where it's mentioned is the same. It's Luke's version and Matthew's version of the exact same dialogue.

Yeah. And they're using certain amount repeated. And yet again, it would be, you know, if we really wanted to get to the idea of what he what was he actually saying, we would know the actual original language. That's just the Greek manuscript. But we speaking Greek, so we don't even know what word he used. But what we do know is the audience that's there, it makes perfect sense that he would be speaking to them in a sense of mana. And again, right after that, he's talking about the forgiveness of sins. So do we look at that as the forgiveness of sins like the church teaches? Because you're making the bread about the church age understanding. Is the forgiveness of sin the same kind of thing? because he's giving them a model that really wouldn't uh apply to them in any feasible way. It would apply to them actually pretty soon. But also,

not necessarily.

Well, well, I mean, if they didn't, yeah, it probably wouldn't apply to them, but I mean, so, but then, you know, there's the issue of you're talking about the mana, and I think that it's important to understand that that's actually, and I guess we can finally get around to John 6. Um, you know, he's like making the, you know, making a type of the mana versus, you know, his flesh, the body, uh, the bread of life, which is his body.

Yeah. Well, you know, I think in John 6, since we finally made it back there, you know, after the guys after some of the disciples left, what does Peter tell Jesus when he when he says to him? Because Jesus says, it says in verse 67, then Jesus unto the 12 said, "Will you also go away?" And we don't see Peter's response going, "No, you have the flesh of of eternal life. You have the blood of eternal life." He emphasizes something. He says in verse 68, "Then Simon Peter answered him,"Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou has the words of eternal life." Yes.

Knowing that the consumption here has to be with the word of God, consuming God's word for our spiritual life, not consuming a physical element to give us spiritual nourishment. It was always the spiritual with the spiritual. I I don't see that tracking at all. I mean, he just went on this whole dialogue about or monologue about how, you know, he is the bread of life, body and blood and that you have to consume that life in you, right? Of course, those words are important to understand and they are spirit and life in some way. But that doesn't negate what Jesus actually said.

Well, but Jesus even more so said that he that believeth on me shall never thirst. And he also said that believeth on him shall have everlasting life. The emphasis was on belief and not eating. So you have the two contrasting.

So there's a difference between the act of I mean this would get into like the kind of weed justification, but like when you think about the act of faith versus the habit of faith, right? The act of faith is just like making the ascent of faith, which if you're a Protestant, you believe that that's the instrumental cause of justification, right? Whereas we believe that the belief there being referred to is actually like a theological virtue of faithfulness which can be increased by the sacraments. I mean, it can be infused and increased by the sacraments. You're just talking Yeah. churchianity stuff like this isn't things that come from the scripture. There's no grace infused from sacraments in the Bible.

Uh, what?

Yeah.

So, again, but you'd have to we'd have to have you on a different topic where we talk about some of the favorites like your water baptism and and things like that. But as far as the Eucharist goes, we don't see that being taught. It's we don't see our argument is is clear that it's is he's speaking symbolically for the reasons we've gave at the beginning. I don't know if you were here at the start where we we're talking about it. Go ahead.

So what we're I got off work like kind of in the middle of this.

Okay. So go so when we're done go back and check out the beginning for the replay and you can kind of see some of the points we were making then. But what we're going to jump into the comments and get some of the people that are asking in there but I want to give you a chance to ask one more question.

Okay. What? You wanted me to be able to ask one more question?

Do you have one more question? Yeah.

Uh, I I don't think so. I mean, I just, you know, agree on the interpretation of John 6, but you know.

Okay. Well, awesome. Well, I appreciate you coming on live with us. I hope you'll come join us in the future as well.

Yeah. Thanks for having me. Um, so can I like DM or, you know, like comment something on on your Twitter under it? That was where I saw this whole thing announced. So yeah, I'm definitely down to have a discussion on justification or ecclesiology at some point.

Sounds good. Send me a DM on Instagram.

That sounds Well, I think or X

I think you might have blocked me on Instagram, actually.

They sent it to me on X.

Okay. Yeah. So, sorry about that. I don't of it, but um it was

All right. I appreciate you coming on live.

Yeah. Yeah. All right. Well, thank you.

All right. So, I wanted to kind of look for everybody who's still watching on live if there's other people wanted to jump on. So, I don't want to go on too too terribly much longer, but I want to look at some of the comments here because there's a lot happening in the comments.

Yeah, there is tons happen. It's almost distracting.

Yeah, you want to pay attention in case uh in case a question is asked, but you want to read too.

Yeah, it looks like they uh I don't know. I thought Yeah, Kyle's still in there. He's he's working on it, moderating it. So, praise God for you, Kyle. Guys, go check out Once Lost Ministries on on YouTube and and check out Kyle's channel. He's got some good stuff he's putting out. Let me see. Where's uh Okay, Kyle said something here. We kind of missed it. The word translated super substantial Greekosis simply means daily or necessary bread, not mystical or eucharistic. Okay. Um, let's see where we have a couple things.

Yeah, while you're looking that up and and trying to find one, I'll I'll just say this again to the to the audience and the people that are listening to this. Um, I think that that it gets to be a dangerous practice when people are able to say Jesus was talking past an audience to someone else when it's not clear because really, who gives anyone license to take that kind of liberty with the text? So the idea that he would be talking about eukaristic bread in in the the model prayer of Matthew 6 is an extreme stretch and something you cannot prove through the text. Let alone the idea that we're relying upon a Greek word that he didn't actually use that I I'm not going to dispute that it's God's word. That's he's used that one that he's used. But um, you know, the Holy Spirit would have moved upon um uh would have moved upon it all of the writers of the text. So the Greek word that's used there is deliberate and it was God inspired. There's no question about that. But to to make the entire belief that it's a eucharistic kind of a a reference to bread. the bread being a you a eucharistic kind of a a mystery of some sort again implies it kind of expressly means that he was talking past the audience and there's a real danger in that that's a a license that I don't think we should ever be able to take with the text.

Yeah, and I think that's the point I was trying to make too is a lot of times with the Greek words people will put too much emphasis on them you see the same thing with uh with the sinlessness of Mary with kettomy in and early in Luke and they try to say, "Well, that word there means she's sinless." Which it doesn't. But they'll try to make an entire doctrine off of a particular Greek word that has to often times these Greek words have to get their def they're how they're defined from the context itself. So they could mean one or two different things. So you know, and again I like I tell people you don't have to be Greek scholar to understand the basic simplicity of Christ in the scripture. It's it's quite easy. And so as as we've proven here, that's not really what he's saying. But I wanted to look at to this section because we're all familiar with the eating and drinking of his flesh. And and like you brought up earlier this idea that for the longest time you wouldn't be able to drink the wine and that you had to just drink the bread. Uh and the late he couldn't drink the wine because they were afraid they would spill it and other things. And so the the catechism and and the council of Trent came out with a new thing. They said, "It's always been the conviction of the church of God that the holy council now declares again that by the consecration of the bread and wine, there takes place a change in the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord in the whole substance of wine into the substance of his blood." And and and they show that it's he's he's fully present in both elements. He's being fully present in both elements. But if you look at what Jesus said, he didn't say and either or. He said and. And so for to take Jesus literally then Jesus said both required to have eternal life not just the one. So by their own literal interpretation flies in their face because now they condemned many people to hell because they didn't give them the wine which Jesus said they had to have. Right? And they they even anathemaize you if you said you had to have both of them.

They anathematized you which is really kind of an interesting thing given our last couple of of people that have called in. When you hear that, you you have to say that's really interesting when you stop to think about it because that's really their only answer that they can give. They're combined into one. And yet they say that there's the eucharistic all these little mysterious uh passages that we find in the in in the the writings. So like you know what what they were mentioning the last guy was mentioning about Matthew 6 or anywhere else that you could say whether it's uh uh 1 Corinthians 10, it's implied there. Yeah. But it's not implied that there is blood mixed in with the bread. It was clearly two distinctly different things that were being that were being offered at the time. So yeah, interesting. It's there. Let me give the reference for it because it's really important uh that you mentioned about that when Jesus promised um that uh he would give the Holy Spirit. John chapter 7. uh that's where you that's where John gives his commentary that he was speaking about the Holy Spirit who could not be given because he was not yet glorified. So that's I think verse 39. So your point about the upper room, Jesus had not been glorified. So he couldn't have given them his glorified blood. He had not gone to the cross. He had not conquered sin and death by resurrection. There's no way he could have given them glorified blood. So if they get to the point, well, he can do anything he wants to. Okay, now you're stepping outside of the scripture yet again, and the one thing that God cannot do is contradict his word. That's one of those prohibitions. He can't deny himself. He cannot contradict himself. That's that's what we do. It's not him.

Right? Yeah. 100%. I mean, so you know, and I think it's it's also important to a lot of times Catholics will in bad faith, they'll use John 666 and they'll say, "Look, it's 666 and it's a bad number." And this is the this is when they left. It says actually from this time many disciples went back and walked no more with him. If they if they weren't taking him literally, why would they have walked away? And they'll use this and they'll you I'm using my tone on purpose because that's kind of the the the way they'll word it. was like, why would they do that? Why would they leave if they were just taking him symbolically? But that's being dishonest to how people understand information. I already read Augustine who already said that no, that's that's not how they interpreted that, right? They were hard of their hearing, I think. But the the overwhelming emphasis is not that they necessarily thought that it was his flesh and blood that they had to eat, but that he was the bread of life that came from heaven. When they knew their parent, they knew his parents. They knew he was from earth. But now he's saying, "I am from heaven." meaning I existed before I was here. Meaning now that he is God. And so the hard saying for them to really wrap their mind was that he was the Messiah. Something that the nation of Israel rejected back in Matthew 12. And so Jesus is teaching in parables here and in parables. Sometimes you'll see priests will say things like, "Yeah, but Jesus didn't say, "No, no, I was kidding. Come back." Like he has to beg them to follow him. Which is never something we see Jesus doing. And so it just it becomes the the the antics that have to be used to try to make it look like Jesus was saying something he wasn't. It could have just been something they didn't understand in the sense that he was deity and then they had to believe him to have eternal life. Something that a Jew wouldn't have understood per se. And so now you have them leaving him. And Peter, as if he knows why they left, tells us, well, where else would we go? Because you have the words of eternal life. He doesn't say though, well, you know, where else would we go? we have we need to eat you. It's it's you know you have to read that stuff into it. You have to read Catholic theology into it. Nobody would read this passage and it's simple clear plain meaning and go wow I got to get Jesus his flesh. Where can I go to get it? And then like you said now you got to have all the rules and regulations. Well, I got to go get it in a Catholic priest who's ordained who you know is under his bishop who is also you know going to give it to me. And and and it just gets it gets stranger. And I think there's even Catholic teachings where the the Catholic priest can part can do the mass and still be in sin and still do the mass. So he's standing in the person of Christ calling down Jesus bodily into the wafer and wine where Jesus is bodily at the right hand of the father. In fact, Jesus even says in Matthew 24, "If they say I'm here, don't go there. Don't believe them." Right? And so now we're saying the same idea. Well, they kind of slide in and out of their actual official positions because the pope can say some of the dopiest things ever. And it's okay if he's not speaking as the vicer. You know, they kind of slide in and out of being that God's representative because if he says something clearly unbiblical, well, he's you know, that becomes the ex cathedral question. So, it's it's just a really an important matter that I think we if we want to try to make this as simple as we could possibly make it. Patrick,

there are two ways to read John 6. One starts to run into some real problems. If it's literal, you run into the problem of um of Leviticus 17:10 about life is in the blood. I've given it as atonement. And the man who eats of it or partakes of blood will be cut off. That's a real big problem. The second part is that chapter six gives no none of the mechanics of it. Doesn't explain transubstantiation any of that stuff. We have to wait upon the Catholic Church who is going to wait centuries and centuries and centuries before they actually come out because finally it gets to the point where they realize hey we got a problem here. We are not able to explain how this actually works. Maybe because of Leviticus and then they come up with this whole you know explanation of the whole thing. Then there is our side of it. We see it as absolutely symbolic and that doesn't run into any kinds of problems with Leviticus. It works perfectly with the rest of the I am statements where he's clear where he's clearly speaking about symbolism. And then there's that explains why there is a complete lack of information in the rest of the of the New Testament giving any kind of clarification on all of the stuff that a couple of the callers and people in the chat have given with all kinds of like I say it when I heard him talking it was like fine print in a contract and that fine print is only found in the church but it's not found in the scripture.

Amen. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think you made a great point. I think like some some of the other commenters here are saying like 663, right? We and we point to this how Catholics have their arguments and things for 663 as well. That's why I say there's there's multiple key verses in John 6 that kind of show us what what he's speaking of here, but speaking of it in that sense of if symbolic, which is what we are saying, because that would have been the Jewish understanding of the Passover meal. and they'll say, you know, this idea of remembrance and there's another Greek word for you over there in remembrance and and they would have understood it as going back and reliving that experience. But even if you wanted to stretch something like that and going back to reliving the Passover experience, the actual time where they came out of Moses, the way you would do that is by opening your Bible and reading it and you would be reading the passage yourself as a Jew, understanding that experience as it was given to us in God's divinely inspired written word. You're not making it up in your head how the events took place. You're experiencing it through meditating on the word. King David meditated on the word himself. The word, the the law of God. He understood it. He didn't have to go through a priest or a specific person or a rabbi or anybody to understand how to meditate on God's word. He was able to do it for himself. And I think that's the the context here is that each individual because salvation now becomes individual that we all can have faith and belief and trust in Jesus Christ and that we can go to him personally. We don't have to go through this other group or other people to make sacrifices for us. We can go to Jesus himself and and so the the bread here that we're the eating here is in context believing and even in the Jewish uh Jewish writings you see that context you know to eat a thing. We even see that with Ezekiel. He has to eat the scroll, right? He's consuming, eating it, meaning he has to understand the prophecy that he's about to unload on Ezekiel, right? And then you have the same thing happened to John who's given the prophecy. He eats the book. The same thing happens to Jeremiah. Jeremiah 15, I believe it is. So there's constantly this context of eating the word. So the eating has to do with that connection of the word. And the word, as we know, became flesh. And so Jesus here is making that connection that I am the word that came from heaven became flesh and

He who eats my flesh has eternal life. He who eats the flesh that was the word. He who eats the word we got to follow it through the whole connection and not stop short. And I think you know that's just what Catholics that's where they stop.

And so jumping right in on that when would when did everything that he was talking about actually when was it actually realized? That was at the last supper. That was at his giving himself at Passover. It was he was the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. He was taking on that Passover uh uh position of the lamb but a once and for all sacrifice. So if that's the case then everything he said in chapter six is also governed by when he did those things. And would he have actually given them flesh and blood to consume that night? Of course they he wouldn't. It would be a violation of the law and he wasn't glorified in all the things and it just falls apart under under any kind of examination.

Interestingly enough, when we go and notice that in chapter 7, it says after these things. So, wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall the night that they all sat down when the crowds went away? Hey, Jesus, can we unwind a little bit on what you said to the group and the and the people that walked away? Can we make sure that we understand this? I I don't think Jesus leaves them twisting because Peter goes, "Where else are we gonna go?" It's not like, "Oh, I understand exactly what you mean." He's basically, "I don't understand, but where else am I going to go?" And so, [clears throat] I don't think Jesus leaves them in a place of not understanding. We just don't have record of it. So, boy, I'll bet that made for a very interesting discussion around the dinner table that night.

Yeah. Yeah. And I think you know just to throw some more passages for our listeners too is you know the Bible teaches that the body of Christ will not have corruption. It will not face corruption. And so we know that this wafer is corrupted. I mean if we follow it it can get a little nasty but if we follow the conclusion that what happens to Jesus after you eat him? What happens to him? He goes to your body and then what happens? You know the holy Lord's going to go out that way. I mean so and then at mystically some period he's no longer the body and blood. It's like none of that exists, right? And that's where I talk about this why this is blasphemous because you're saying that you can actually take Jesus and consume God in you and then, you know, release him. But anyway, the the point I want to make here is what Peter and Paul quote from Psalm 16:10. And it's that because thou will not leave thy soul in hell, thou shalt not suffer that holy one to see corruption. And they're quoting back the messianic passages in Psalm 16:10. Peter does it in uh Acts 2:27 and Paul does it in Acts 13:35 showing that same connection. So if the body here is to face corruption, if it's if its literal body didn't, then why would we assume that this body does or is God's word contradicting? And so like you said, we have a lot of problems because we know that the wafer does deteriorate and obviously it's consumed and eaten, you know. So I mean it it flies in the face of all these other passages in the scripture.

But I think just to kind of show as a council of Trent, I found a couple of them in canon one. If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy eucharist are contained truly really substantially the body and blood together with the soul divinity of our lord Jesus Christ and consequently the whole Christ but sayeth that he is only there in a sign or figure or virtue let him be anathema. And I think that's the heart of of the whole entire argument is that Roman Catholics will commonly say that we are brothers in Christ. We're all brothers in the Lord. But here we have them anathematizing our position and belief on this situation and which we would believe is the position of the apostles and Jesus himself based off of what we read in the scripture. And so they're in a sense they're anathematizing anybody who disagrees. Why is this such a threat to them and a salvific issue for them to have to to say that? It has to be some sort of satanic origin to say if anybody says this, don't listen to them. That's cult speech when it really comes down to it. If they're saying anything else against what we're saying because we've said it, then they're outside of the church. And and the Catholic Church teaches that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church.

So anathematizing you would put you outside of the church.

Yeah. Well, you and I are in kind of rare Well, I shouldn't say rare company. There's a lot of us, but we are we are like as offensive as as offensive gets because not only have we left, but we disagree with not only the Eucharist, but we actually renounce everything about what made us who we were as as Catholics buying into the everything that they say. So, um you don't get more anathema than we are, you and me. We're the worst because we're we're apostates as far as that's

Yeah. We're not just rejecting, we are willfully rejecting what we know. And it's troubling too, Chris, because there's a lot of people on social media. I had one comment and he said, you know, it's a good thing we weren't earlier in church history. You'd have been hang or or you'd have been burned. And it's like, I mean, you're you're making a good point. You're not wrong. That's what Catholics did. When they disagreed with your argument, they didn't act like bullies and thugs on social media. They killed you.

I mean, for lack of better words, that's the history. And any Catholic who doesn't know that history didn't really study history before they became Catholic then. And and I think that's the important thing here is this language that we're using whereas now you see Vatican 2 and this new pope apparently trying to invite more people in an ecumenical stance to becoming part of uh you know of the brethren right and and bringing us in but at the same time you have the council of Trent that's very abrasive and teaching the same idea. So which is it? And this is again because it's a man-made system. It's got things and that oh they have this guy said this now we got to have a loophole. We got to have an exception clause. Well, we got to come up and it's just over and over and over and over again.

Right. Right. Yeah. It's been a a an interesting time having, you know, left it and uh the way that we're what how we are viewed is it's what I would expect, but it is kind of interesting. I don't think people realize that um how the Protestants are viewed uh but former Catholics as Protestants, man. Oh, man. There is a there's a real vitrial towards those kind of people because we're doing it eyes wide open. No, no. We know what you teach. We once believed what you teach. Now we absolutely reject it in every conceivable forceful way that we can say it. Not to be defiant, not to get into an argument, but no, we absolutely we absolutely disagree with the authority of the church, the teaching of the church, the dogmas of the church, all of it. And it's not it's not done to be provocative. It's just no, let me go ahead and stay where I'm at and and where I stand on these things.

Mhm. Yeah. It's it's taking an intellectual critique of of what we have and and at the end of the day, you know, these things are spiritually discerned also. And so, you're going to have people that'll be Bible scholars and, you know, like Scott Han with Catholicism and and and they'll claim they read the Bible and they did it. They became a Catholic and they became a Roman Catholic. But when you really start getting into it is there's a lot of biases that start you start to see and and how they came. A lot of times they came from a a strict reformed background or a Calvinist background that kind of just kind of just flew right into it. Um but we could probably talk more on that on another day.

I see that Kyle put up something here because this is a kind of an inside joke between us and we've done it a couple of times before because we usually get it thrown in our face. Well, you know, now there's 30,000 Christian denominations and you know, Luther this and Luther that. And my view of Luther and all the early reformers is, "Hey man, I think that they got it right on on where do we get our authority, but not much else." So whenever Luther comes up, it's like, "No, no, no. He's closer to where you are than where I am theologically. So you can have him back and I don't want anything in return." It's like that. It's like we're trading players on a on a football team. Need a player in return. You can have him back. He's much more like you than me.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I think, you know, you bring up a good point because a lot of times, especially online, ill-informed Catholics are like, "Oh, you guys follow Luther. Luther was the first Protestant. Luther was the first this and so you guys follow this man." Because by their brain, they follow a man. And so they assume that other Christian named people follow men. And so they can't break that logic and and show that disconnect. You know, Martin Luther may have some good things he did. He might have began right in some areas, but he ended horribly. And he's a whole other topic of discussion. And non non-atholic Christians don't follow men. We follow the Bible. We're biblicists. We follow the scripture where it leads us in the truth of God's word. Inspired the interpretation of God's word, teaching us, you know, scripture, interpreting scripture.

Yes. Amen.

So, well, Chris, I appreciate you coming on live and everybody joining us here and sticking with us for two hours and and and I'm glad we did have a couple Catholics that came on to talk and and some of you guys, we tried to keep up with you in the comments as as best we could. So, praise God for that. And I just want to remind you guys that if you're watching this the week that it comes out to go check out our page, philippians 19.org/enroll. We have open enrollment right now for our online apologetics bible college. So, just like you would go to any other Bible college, you can check out the online apologetics bible college. take all the same type of courses, even better, more in-depth, that are going to help you be able to defend your faith with clarity and accuracy and with confidence so that you don't react emotionally to people that have objections. You can respond with your point. It doesn't mean they're going to they're going to uh take it and understand it and their life's going to be changed, but you can respond with the scripture and say, "This is why I believe what I believe. Here it is. Take it or leave it. Just plant the seed and let God do the watering." And so the online apologetics Bible college is open for enrollment right now until Sunday. So December 14th. So go check that out on our page, philippians.org/enroll. But I think we're going to try to maybe do one more live show this week. So stay tuned if you're following me on any of the socials and we'll look at that next topic from there. But again, I appreciate you guys coming on, staying on live. Feel free to reach out to me in the DMs or check out Quiz Quintana on Old Path Theology over on YouTube and and Kyle who's been doing a great job and and moderating hair moderating Once Lost Ministries and even K uh Kelly Powers from Bereine Perspective Apologetics. Until next time everybody, press on in Jesus, continue to study his word and we'll talk again real soon. [music] [music]