Don't understand this portion

[SIC]

1 minute ago, Sister said:

Matthew 26:26   And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

Matthew 26:27   And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

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

 

  Matthew 20:22   But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.

  Matthew 20:23   And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

1 Corinthians 11:25   After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

 

Jesus was persecuted for righteousness sake.  If we shall be like him, we must be prepared to drink of the same cup that he drank of.  In other words, be prepared to suffer also as he did.  Be prepared for what is coming as he was.

 Revelation 12:17   And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

 

Ok thank you

[B3L13v3R]

8 hours ago, SIC said:

^{John 6:53} Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you...

I don't quite understand what Jesus meant by eating his body and drinking his blood

 

The verses you brought are often misconstrued by the Roman Catholic and Episcopalian church to mean a real "physical" jesus in the Eucharistic "host" and the real "physical" blood of jesus in the wine/grape juice.

It is not, it is merely symbolic about our Lord and Savior!

This excerpt from Roger Oakland did a good job explaining one of the Scripture verses you brought up in context, versus what Rome would have us believe:

 

"...The idea of Transubstantiation was extracted from Scripture where Jesus said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you” (John 6:53). Unfortunately, Catholic scholars were remiss in examining the context of the Scripture, where his disciples were murmuring of what Jesus could have meant by saying these things. If we read further, Jesus explains His meaning:

Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:60-63)

First, Jesus makes it clear that He could not have meant this in the physical sense because He was soon to be gone (“ascend up where He was before”). Second, Jesus tells them He had been using a figure of speech by speaking in spiritual terms (which He did regularly): “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit.” Third, Jesus tells them that “the flesh profiteth nothing” where the word “flesh” is the same Greek word that Jesus used in John 6:53 above. What’s more, the idea of partaking of blood becomes even more difficult when we consider that partaking of blood was forbidden in the Law, while the consumption of human blood was an unthinkable abomination. Clearly, Jesus had used a statement earlier that can only be correctly interpreted as a figure of speech. Later, at the Last Supper, Jesus made it plain again that He had been speaking figuratively when He said, “this do in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19) as opposed to telling them they would be participating in a new event.

Does this Catholic doctrine of the Eucharistic Christ really matter? Apparently, it did to Mrs. Prest of 16th century England (Found in the Fox's Book of Martyrs) who lived during the reign of Queen Mary. This godly woman was burned alive at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church. Her crime—opposing Roman Catholicism, primarily that of the Eucharist. When challenged on that point by a bishop, she replied:

I will demand of you whether you can deny your creed, which says that Christ does perpetually sit at the right hand of His Father, both body and soul, until He comes again; or whether He be there in heaven our Advocate and to make prayer for us unto God His Father? If He be so, He is not here on earth in a piece of bread. If He be not here, and if He do not dwell in temples made with hands but in heaven, why shall we seek Him here? If with one offering He made all perfect, why do you with a false offering make all imperfect? If He is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth, why do you worship a piece of bread [the Eucharist]? Alas! I am a poor woman, but rather than to do as you do, I would live no longer.15

The fact that Mrs. Prest was later burned alive awakens to us the horrors of what she must have endured. But we should not allow the testimony of how she died overshadow the message of why she died. We dishonor the martyrs when we forget what they died for.

What was it that troubled Mrs. Prest so much about the Eucharist that she was willing to die a martyrs death? It had much more to do than the fact that the Roman Catholic Church contradicts Scripture over where Jesus is physically present. The real issue is that the Catholic Church has established another Jesus and another Gospel. The true Gospel tells us that we are saved by faith alone through the one-time sacrifice of Jesus at the Cross:

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God. (Hebrews 10:10-12)

The Catholic “Gospel” maintains that we are saved by our participation in the Mass where the sacrifice of Calvary repeats itself again and again. This works-based “Gospel” is unable to save anyone. Only when one comes to Christ in humble repentance and puts one’s faith in Jesus Christ and believes in the one-time sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross is one born again from above, born of the Spirit, with the Holy Spirit dwelling in his or her heart. The true Gospel offers assurance of salvation, but the Catholic gospel offers no such assurance as it is based on our performance.

Further, the fact that the Eucharistic Jesus is re-sacrificed at each Mass demonstrates another major conflict with the Bible. Once again, in the Book of Hebrews, this is illustrated:

And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. (Hebrews 9:15-17)

In other words, for the New Testament to be in effect, Jesus had to die “once for all” (Hebrews 10:10), which was the ultimate sacrifice and proof of His divine perfection. To propose a re-enactment of the one offering once made is to denigrate the very will and purpose of the Father and the majesty, power, and absolute perfection of Jesus Christ the Lord. And as Hebrews 10: 11-12 explains, the contrast of the two offerings (man’s versus God’s) is man’s offering can “never take away sins” and God “offered one sacrifice for sins for ever.”

The Catholic “Gospel” makes Jesus’ sacrifice like the repeated sacrifices of bulls and goats of the Old Testament that could never take away sins (Hebrews 10:4). Jesus has “obtained eternal redemption.” “It is finished” (John 19:30), as Jesus said. The upper room is vacated. The cross is bare. And the tomb is empty. Jesus has been resurrected. Hallelujah! He now dwells in the hearts of those who have trusted and believed on Him. Truly, this is reason for rejoicing!"

[SIC]

8 hours ago, B3L13v3R said:

 

The verses you brought are often misconstrued by the Roman Catholic and Episcopalian church to mean a real "physical" jesus in the Eucharistic "host" and the real "physical" blood of jesus in the wine/grape juice.

It is not, it is merely symbolic about our Lord and Savior!

This excerpt from Roger Oakland did a good job explaining one of the Scripture verses you brought up in context, versus what Rome would have us believe:

 

"...The idea of Transubstantiation was extracted from Scripture where Jesus said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you” (John 6:53). Unfortunately, Catholic scholars were remiss in examining the context of the Scripture, where his disciples were murmuring of what Jesus could have meant by saying these things. If we read further, Jesus explains His meaning:

Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:60-63)

First, Jesus makes it clear that He could not have meant this in the physical sense because He was soon to be gone (“ascend up where He was before”). Second, Jesus tells them He had been using a figure of speech by speaking in spiritual terms (which He did regularly): “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit.” Third, Jesus tells them that “the flesh profiteth nothing” where the word “flesh” is the same Greek word that Jesus used in John 6:53 above. What’s more, the idea of partaking of blood becomes even more difficult when we consider that partaking of blood was forbidden in the Law, while the consumption of human blood was an unthinkable abomination. Clearly, Jesus had used a statement earlier that can only be correctly interpreted as a figure of speech. Later, at the Last Supper, Jesus made it plain again that He had been speaking figuratively when He said, “this do in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19) as opposed to telling them they would be participating in a new event.

Does this Catholic doctrine of the Eucharistic Christ really matter? Apparently, it did to Mrs. Prest of 16th century England (Found in the Fox's Book of Martyrs) who lived during the reign of Queen Mary. This godly woman was burned alive at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church. Her crime—opposing Roman Catholicism, primarily that of the Eucharist. When challenged on that point by a bishop, she replied:

I will demand of you whether you can deny your creed, which says that Christ does perpetually sit at the right hand of His Father, both body and soul, until He comes again; or whether He be there in heaven our Advocate and to make prayer for us unto God His Father? If He be so, He is not here on earth in a piece of bread. If He be not here, and if He do not dwell in temples made with hands but in heaven, why shall we seek Him here? If with one offering He made all perfect, why do you with a false offering make all imperfect? If He is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth, why do you worship a piece of bread [the Eucharist]? Alas! I am a poor woman, but rather than to do as you do, I would live no longer.15

The fact that Mrs. Prest was later burned alive awakens to us the horrors of what she must have endured. But we should not allow the testimony of how she died overshadow the message of why she died. We dishonor the martyrs when we forget what they died for.

What was it that troubled Mrs. Prest so much about the Eucharist that she was willing to die a martyrs death? It had much more to do than the fact that the Roman Catholic Church contradicts Scripture over where Jesus is physically present. The real issue is that the Catholic Church has established another Jesus and another Gospel. The true Gospel tells us that we are saved by faith alone through the one-time sacrifice of Jesus at the Cross:

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God. (Hebrews 10:10-12)

The Catholic “Gospel” maintains that we are saved by our participation in the Mass where the sacrifice of Calvary repeats itself again and again. This works-based “Gospel” is unable to save anyone. Only when one comes to Christ in humble repentance and puts one’s faith in Jesus Christ and believes in the one-time sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross is one born again from above, born of the Spirit, with the Holy Spirit dwelling in his or her heart. The true Gospel offers assurance of salvation, but the Catholic gospel offers no such assurance as it is based on our performance.

Further, the fact that the Eucharistic Jesus is re-sacrificed at each Mass demonstrates another major conflict with the Bible. Once again, in the Book of Hebrews, this is illustrated:

And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. (Hebrews 9:15-17)

In other words, for the New Testament to be in effect, Jesus had to die “once for all” (Hebrews 10:10), which was the ultimate sacrifice and proof of His divine perfection. To propose a re-enactment of the one offering once made is to denigrate the very will and purpose of the Father and the majesty, power, and absolute perfection of Jesus Christ the Lord. And as Hebrews 10: 11-12 explains, the contrast of the two offerings (man’s versus God’s) is man’s offering can “never take away sins” and God “offered one sacrifice for sins for ever.”

The Catholic “Gospel” makes Jesus’ sacrifice like the repeated sacrifices of bulls and goats of the Old Testament that could never take away sins (Hebrews 10:4). Jesus has “obtained eternal redemption.” “It is finished” (John 19:30), as Jesus said. The upper room is vacated. The cross is bare. And the tomb is empty. Jesus has been resurrected. Hallelujah! He now dwells in the hearts of those who have trusted and believed on Him. Truly, this is reason for rejoicing!"

So you are saying it is done in remembrance of Jesus rather than as a ritual that is necessary for salvation.... is that right?

[B3L13v3R]

11 hours ago, SIC said:

So you are saying it is done in remembrance of Jesus rather than as a ritual that is necessary for salvation.... is that right?

 

Hi Sic, yes. As Christians we break bread as a remembrance of what our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did for us when He died on the cross.

It is certainly not a necessity for Salvation, but after we are saved, a reminder of what our Lord and Savior did for us when He died for our sins.

Jesus Christ is never "present" in the host (bread) itself as believed by Roman Catholics, Episcopalians and Lutherans.

[SIC]

6 minutes ago, B3L13v3R said:

 

Hi Sic, yes. As Christians we break bread as a remembrance of what our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did for us when He died on the cross.

It is certainly not a necessity for Salvation, but after we are saved, a reminder of what our Lord and Savior did for us when He died for our sins.

Jesus Christ is never "present" in the host (bread) itself as believed by Roman Catholics, Episcopalians and Lutherans.

Jesus Christ is certainly not present in bread. It is funny to think of Jesus being present in bread lol

[Ezra]

On 6/19/2016 at 0:09 AM, SIC said:

I don't quite understand what Jesus meant by eating his body and drinking his blood

When Christ instituted the Lord's Supper (at the Last Supper) He presented the bread to His disciples as symbolic of His body, and the cup as symbolic of His blood. When Christians partake of the Lord's Supper, they remember that they have received Christ in Spirit, and that these elements represent His body and His blood that were given for their redemption. But Christ is present in Spirit, and that should be accepted as His "real" presence.

Since Christ is in a glorious body in Heaven, it is evident that Christians are not literally partaking of His body.  Since Christ shed His blood at the Cross, it is also evident that Christians are not literally partaking of His blood.  Those churches which claim that somehow the elements at the Mass literally and supernaturally become the body and blood of Christ are not really interpreting the Scriptures correctly.

[Serving]

On 19/06/2016 at 2:09 PM, SIC said:

⁵³ Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. ⁵⁴ Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. ⁵⁵ For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.⁵⁶ Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. ⁵⁷ Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. ⁵⁸ This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 

I don't quite understand what Jesus meant by eating his body and drinking his blood

Whenever you're not sure, Just backtrack some verses :

41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

HOW is one taught? They HEAR (READ the word) and they LEARN right ..

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Accepting (hearing/reading) the word that teaches is like digesting food, like the saying, "we are what we EAT" .. whatever you fill yourself with is likened to food, be it sports, religion, lust for money etc etc etc ..  so Christ is likened to food because men can fill themselves with His doctrine (teachings), and since His doctrine is MEAT (nourishment to the soul) indeed, those who hear Him .. emulate Him simply because they have filled themselves with His words which is food indeed .. food for the soul. 

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

And one either hears words or reads them right .. and Christ's words are infused with spirit, they are spiritual .. and to have that Spirit of Christ is life indeed, because it is that spirit which grows within you that God will use to change you into an eternal being :

Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

 

[SIC]

10 hours ago, Ezra said:

When Christ instituted the Lord's Supper (at the Last Supper) He presented the bread to His disciples as symbolic of His body, and the cup as symbolic of His blood. When Christians partake of the Lord's Supper, they remember that they have received Christ in Spirit, and that these elements represent His body and His blood that were given for their redemption. But Christ is present in Spirit, and that should be accepted as His "real" presence.

Since Christ is in a glorious body in Heaven, it is evident that Christians are not literally partaking of His body.  Since Christ shed His blood at the Cross, it is also evident that Christians are not literally partaking of His blood.  Those churches which claim that somehow the elements at the Mass literally and supernaturally become the body and blood of Christ are not really interpreting the Scriptures correctly.

Agreed a 100%

[SIC]

9 hours ago, Serving said:

Whenever you're not sure, Just backtrack some verses :

41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

HOW is one taught? They HEAR (READ the word) and they LEARN right ..

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Accepting (hearing/reading) the word that teaches is like digesting food, like the saying, "we are what we EAT" .. whatever you fill yourself with is likened to food, be it sports, religion, lust for money etc etc etc ..  so Christ is likened to food because men can fill themselves with His doctrine (teachings), and since His doctrine is MEAT (nourishment to the soul) indeed, those who hear Him .. emulate Him simply because they have filled themselves with His words which is food indeed .. food for the soul. 

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

And one either hears words or reads them right .. and Christ's words are infused with spirit, they are spiritual .. and to have that Spirit of Christ is life indeed, because it is that spirit which grows within you that God will use to change you into an eternal being :

Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

 

ok. But what about the drink part?

[Serving]

16 hours ago, SIC said:

ok. But what about the drink part?

Oh the blood?

Well in the blood is LIFE according to scripture .. the flesh represents His doctrine and the blood represents the Spirit behind that doctrine (flesh) .. you must "eat" the doctrine to receive the Spirit contained within that doctrine right, which is allegory for the LIFE within that doctrine, IN the blood is life remember .. it's an allegory.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

The words Christ spoke was His doctrine .. and those words are likened to flesh or meat .. and all flesh contains blood else the flesh rots .. and that blood is allegory for the Spirit which is the life sustaining the flesh that He tells us to eat.

Interesting to note that the Old Testament required the BLOOD be drained from the meat right?

That's because the Old Testament was by the letter of the Law and NOT by the SPIRIT like the New Covenant was .. they were required to sprinkle the blood, yes (an allegory for Christ's sacrifice), but not to digest it. (not saying we should physically drink blood, but these are allegories after all)

Hope that helps.