Is John 6 about the Catholic Eucharist? 

it is also the reason why St. Paul said your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. when you receive Jesus Christ in the flesh, in the eucharist, you receive God Himself. and just as the temple of Jerusalem is kept pure for the Holy Spirit to reside, so must you be holy for God to reside in you.

so amusing to see Karlo so animated on stage. LOL i'm so used to seeing him in the CA studio, in a chair and answering queries calmly.

I've always wondered what some of the main Protestant objections to John 6 were. This video was perfect to get into that. Thanks Karlo!

Thank You Brother Karlo as followers of CHRIST march on!! GOD Bless You! Jonathan

Very logical arguments!

My goodness I am such a fan of Karlo Broussard.

Tnx for this great talk. It really helps me a lot in deepening my Catholic faith.

I like the way this chapter is read at Mass on Sundays 17-21 of Ordinary Time in Year B.

Brilliant and compelling. Thanks!

I take Jesus Christ words as the guaranteed truth! I am not here to judge nor should anyone else judge!

Can we have more Karlo presentations 😊

Spot on!!

Excellent

Ultimately, the correct interpretation of any Scripture is a matter of authority rather than of the pure application of reason and logic. However, I think it is useful to be able to provide such strong reasons for the Catholic interpretation before moving on to the more fundamental issue of authority. So the point-for-point back-and-forth is not without value!

A very clear explanation

Brilliant❤️🙏😄

Excellent presentation here. Very clear and informative. Thankyou very much for this teaching!,

To my Protestant brothers and sisters: *SUPPOSE* Jesus actually wanted us to eat His flesh and drink His blood, what _exactly_ should He have said?

Yes it is!!

Putting the dots together, it seems that those not accepting the Eucharist are in fact repeating what the disciples had done when they left Jesus. That the Father hasn’t revealed it to them. And that they don’t have the life of Christ within them and will not be resurrected.. It is quite troubling that the same book leads to such divergent conclusions. Thank you for the video.

Amen 🙏

Amen! plus it was fully understood by Gods people that participation in a sacrifice was to eat (partake) in it - just as Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 10:16-18!!!

the John 6 bread discourse condemns all protestants because they do not follow this ordinance from Jesus

This video was awesome and this dude is high energy. Such a tough crowd tho! Lol.

But he answered and said unto them, "Why do you also transgress *the commandment of God* by your TRADITION?” {Matthew 15:3}

VIVA CRISTO REY!!!

Thank you bro Karlo. Its a very good presentation on John 6. If i can also shortly share: I'm always asking most evangelicals, that when Jesus compared in eating his flesh and drinking his blood with his Ascension (But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you?" Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? Jn. 6:61-62). Does his Ascension, a metaphor which was pertained as symbolical? Or does he literally ascended ? Well we can't find that Jesus ascend as a dove or butterfly in heaven. BUT HE LITERALLY ASCENDED to HEAVEN. "When he had said this, as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight." Acts 1:9 NRSV-CI * Then most of them will pause ,think & they will change verse or topic.

Correction: Jesus clarifies what he was saying in verse 63 after many of his disciples left him as it is stated in verse 60. Did anyone else catch his incorrect statement at 16:45 of his talk?

👍

Jesus said there would be few who found the hard and narrow path to life, and many who would take the broad path to perdition. Jesus also said to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood was to have life. The few remained, the many walked, and we ought not be surprised at it

I believe in Real Presence and am a Protestant/Catholic = Anglican. 😊

If I am a true believer in Jesus, would it be really hard and difficult to just believe his words? I find no error in following his words and contemplating those words. Chances are, his words were true.

Dr. White (like me) uses the King James Version, but John 6:66 in the KJV starts with "From that time...", which would imply the "and this" temporal sense. I guess Dr. White only likes the KJV when it suits his meaning.

(Jn. 6:40) “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” (Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” According to this parallel, beholding and believing (v.40) are equated with eating and drinking Christ’s flesh (v.54). This is further paralleled by verse 35: (Jn. 6:35) I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. (Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” To “hunger” and “thirst” and parallel to the one who “eats” and “drinks.” But note what Jesus says satisfies our hunger: “He who comes to Me… he who believes in Me.” Jesus isn’t speaking about his literal flesh and blood any more than he is speaking about literal bread (Jn. 6:35) or literal water (Jn. 4:10-14). Indeed, Jesus uses the term sarx for his “body,” rather than the common term sōma (which was the common term used in the Lord’s Supper). Indeed, the “term ‘flesh’ is never used in the NT to refer to the Lord’s Supper.”[4] Hence, this seems “to caution against a sacramental or eucharistic understand of these verses.”[5] This is why Augustine of Hippo wrote regarding this passage: “Believe, and you have eaten.” At the Council of Trent Rome taught her belief was affirmed by “all our forefathers” (Thirteenth Session, Chapter 1, The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. However, this is certainly not the case. Didache 9.1 - (AD 100) Now, concerning the Eucharist, practice it as follows. " First, concerning the cup: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your son, which you made known to us through Jesus your son, glory to you forever a Next, concerning the broken bread: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you made known to us through Jesus your son, glory to you forever b4 Just as this broken bread was being scattered over the mountains and being brought together it became one; likewise bring together your church from the ends of the earth into your kingdom, so that yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever cs But none shall eat or shall drink from your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; for also concerning this the Lord has said, "Do give not what is holy to the dogs." The Didache (AD 100): “On the Lord’s day assemble and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure. If any have a dispute with his fellow, let him not come to the assembly till they be reconciled, that your sacrifice be not polluted. For this is the sacrifice spoken of by the Lord; ‘In every place and at every time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great king, said the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the Gentiles; (Mal. i. 11, 14).” This doesn’t refer to Jesus’ sacrifice, but to “your sacrifice.” The same Greek word for “sacrifice” (thusia) is used of Jesus’ sacrifice (Heb. 5:1), but it is also used of doing good deeds, praise, and financial giving (Heb. 13:15-16; Phil. 4:18). The same book also refers to the supper as the “cup” and the “bread,” and a means of remembering Jesus’ sacrifice in thanksgiving (Didache, 9). Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 180) stated that the elements do not lose the nature of bread and wine (Against Heresies, 4.18.4-5; 5.2.2). Tertullian (AD 200) said Jesus’ statement was figurative (Against Marcion, 3.19). Clement of Alexandria (AD 200) called the bread and wine symbols of Jesus’ body (The Instructor, I.6). Origen (AD 250) held his typical allegorical and spiritual view when referring to the elements in the Last Supper. Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 340) called the elements the body and blood of Christ, but also referred to them as symbolic of spiritual realities (On the Theology of the Church, 3.2.12). Augustine (AD 350) believed that John 6:53 should be understood spiritually and symbolically-not literalistically (On Christian Doctrine 3.16.2). Gelasius I (5th century pope): “The sacrament which we receive of the body and blood of Christ is a divine thing. Wherefore also by means of it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to be… Thus, as the elements pass into this, that is, the divine substance by the Holy Ghost, and none the less remain in their own proper nature.” Transubstantiation was a medieval development versus a patristic origin. Christ is present in the Eucharist, but not in a physical transubstantiated State. Hence the whole point of the verse in question. He is present with us mysteriously and spiritually, and the necessity of the Eucharist is correct in the Roman church in that it must be practiced frequently as a practice of the regenerate believer, rather than as a salvific practice to regenerate the unbeliever.

Isn’t it interesting that Jesus equates not accepting eating and drinking of him as [Leaving him].

This is why few actually are obedient to God. They ignore what the first Christian’s taught and that the gospel of John was the last gospel written during a time when heresies had already started. This is why his language on the Eucharist and other topics is so literal with what the apostles believed to dispel the heresy new converts and those who were not witnesses had begun to spread: that Jesus was not divine, that Jesus did not rise from the dead, that the Eucharist was not the actual flesh and blood of Jesus

John is the only evangelist who did not write the story of the institution of the Eucharist, because in the 6th chapter he already told about the Eucharist long enough. Instead, to complete the other evangelists, he talked about the washing of the feet which no other apostle wrote about. Both aspects of priesthood (sanctification and service) are shown. The story of the institution is clear enough to imagine John 6 is metaphorical.

When Jesus said whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life. Who was the first one to literally eat and drink his blood while Jesus was still alive 🤔 🤣 😂 🤣?!?!

The papacy is a gift from God

John 6:35, Yeshua said to them, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to Me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in Me will never be thirsty.” John 6 should not be confused with The Lord’s Supper… Matthew 26, is in the context of the Passover Seder, which was replaced with Easter, after the Council of Nicea… Nowhere in Scripture does it teach to stop observing Passover… Jesus observed Passover… Romans 6:10 For the death He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life He lives, He lives to God. How can anyone teach that Matthew 26 is = to transubstantiation? How can anyone teach that there’s any evidence in Scripture of an unbloody sacrifice, performed by priests, on an alter, which involves the actual body of the Son of God, which provides forgiveness of sin, which is worshipped equally to God? The eating of the unleavened bread, and the drinking of the wine, are clearly explained in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. Any teaching that goes away from this teaching, must be rejected… Everything in the Passover Seder is symbolic, it’s done in remembrance… Yeshua is the fulfillment of Scripture, not the replacement of Scripture… People don’t have a right to change the meaning of Scripture, or make tradition equal to it, according to their own choosing… We eat the unleavened bread, and drink the wine, to remember that Jesus Christ died for our sin, a once for all death.

Great video, as always with Mr Carlo and Catholic answers. But me personally go really tired with the presented here Protestant gymnastics - in a sense how people understand the Bible verses 1500 or 2,000 year after the gospels were written is really irrelevant. The most important is how those words were understood by the Christians lived with and heard Jesus Christ, meaning the apostles and the early church. And there's enough clarification to refute any objections.

Yes, they are wrong

I'm certainly glad James White never translated the Bible. He seems to lean quite heavily on his understanding of Greek to invent up his own ideas of what Scripture says. Him, 1 person. All the other bible translations many many people, and yet they always fail to properly translate according to James White! Then of course there is the fact that the Apostles were teaching and not reading. According to the James Whites, the Apostle were incompetent.

I wonder what Steven Nemes would say to this...

It's important to learn how Jesus tought ? and how his Apostle tought why BECAUSE WE WERE NOT THERE IN 2000 YRS AGO SO WE DONT BELIEVE OURSELVES "WE BELIEF ON THEM ON HOW THEY READ BIBLE AND INTERPRATE SYSTEMATICALLY S0 MATERIAL (BIBLE)ARE OUT IT US TO FIND THE TRUTH. REMEMBER JESUS TOUGHT FROM THE BOOK OF MOSES,PROPHET AND PSALM CONCERN THE THING TO HIMSELF LUKE 24:44-48 ,THEN HIS DISCIPLES(Apostle)...WROTE DOCTRINE STATING FROM MOSES SYSTEMATICALLY LOOK WHAT JOHN WRITE John 1:1 quote from Gen 1:1 So simple speaking Jesus was STUDENT of Moses meaning he quotied from Moses and use the word EAT from Genesis and John wrote it. ‭‭Genesis 3:6 KJV‬‬ [6] And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did EAT, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did EAT. Then John document word from Jesus ‭‭John 6:53-54 KJV‬‬ [53] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye EAT(greek word Phago) the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. [54] Whoso EATETH(greek word Trogo means gnow or chew) my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. USES OF TROGO IN THE BIBLE ‭‭Matthew 24:38 KJV‬‬ [38] For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating(TROGO) and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, TROGO OR PHOGO are the word Jesus used to quote Moses from book of Genesis 3:6, so Spiritual application of TROGO IS THE FAITH IN JESUS RESURRECTION without even eating literal. Because Saith Paul STATED clearly in 2Cor, that EATING (TROGO) is like to say NOT BELIEVING where Mosese has showed us Eva EAT the fruit ‭‭2 Corinthians 11:3-4 KJV‬‬ [3] But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. [4] For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. PAUL EXPLAN GEN 3:6 IN 2COR. Jesus DID TOUGHT TO EAT (TROGO)HIS FRESH meaning to believe HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION.... Another word John quote from Moses ‭‭Genesis 2:8 KJV‬‬ [8] And the LORD God planted a GARDEN eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. ‭‭John 19:41 KJV‬‬ [41] Now in the place where he was crucified there was a GARDEN; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. SCRIPTURES POITING TORWAD CHRIST BY FAITH ONLY.

As a recompense Jesus manifested his divinity to his three very faithful and committed apostles in the transfiguration. John 5:47 But if you do not believe his - Moses - writings, how will you believe my words? John 12:47-50 And if anyone hears my words and does not observe them, I do not condemn him, for I did not come to condemn the world but to save the world. Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words has something to judge him: the word that I spoke, it will condemn him on the last day, because I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. So what I say, I say as the Father told me.

Catholic answers- John 6:51..I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: Is Jesus a literal walking real life bread?"If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever.If you were there catholic when Jesus said "If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever". How are you going to literally eat the living bread to have eternal life while Jesus still alive?? Jesus said "if you don't eat my flesh and drink my blood now you don't have life in you. How are you going to literally eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood while he was still alive to have eternal life know??Name just one disciple or

none of Christ's apostles or disciples ate His flesh or drank His blood. Christ was speaking symbolically/metaphorically, as He often did in His parables. He (in John 6) was speaking about accepting Him spiritually as Lord and Savior.

Seems Whites interp puts his heterodox Calvinist position in a bit of a pickle w/ many followers leaving, falling away from Christ......but of course they always have the "out" of "they were never true believers in the first place" lol. We are called to participate in this holy faith as partakers of the divine nature, the grace offered in the heavenly manna, the Supper of the Lamb. Unless we eat the flesh of the Son of Man & drink His blood, you have no life in you. To add, of course Jesus words are spirit, His words are also truth, just as this religion is spiritual, but its physical, living, active & powerful. A mere symbol would not bring judgement or grace, hence its literally the body & blood of the Son of God

“Believe in me, and never hunger” Also, “Eat my flesh and drink my blood and have life within you.” Catholic response: I believe, and so i eat Protestant response: I believe, and so i refuse to eat

That is Catholism 100%. That is also the reason the Jews rejected Jesus. It was a language too hard to understand. Jesus is the Eucharist! He is Holy! He is King!

Not sure but I know John 5 is about the Motley Crue.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia cautions: “We should not rely too heavily on the literalness of the words ‘This IS my body’ or ‘This IS my blood.’” This authoritative encyclopedia admits that the wording at Matthew 26:26-28 does not prove that the bread and the wine were changed into Jesus’ literal body and blood at the Last Supper! Jesus was speaking figuratively and he compared himself to bread because through his sacrifice he would impart life to mankind. John 6:35,40 clearly indicates that the eating and drinking would be done by exercising faith in Jesus Christ. 😊

So enlightening and eye opening. Pure revelation from above. ""Flesh and blood did not reveal that to you but my Father who is in heaven." The Jews had difficulty with drinking the blood of Jesus because the law forbade to drink blood as the "life is in the blood;" they probably reasoned that this would have caused them to blatantly break the law. Their forefathers had eaten mana in the wilderness, the bread that came down from heaven every morning and did not live forever but died and yet if they ate the true bread from heaven, the body of Christ they would live forever. By the way, even the New Testament forbids Christians to drink animal blood.

The whole point of John 6 is missed when you assume Jesus was trying to “ease” the understanding for this disciples. Jesus specified in verse 64 that he knew they did not believe from the beginning. They were never really disciples. By alluding to his ascension, he is asking a rhetorical question. “What if you were to see me ascend to where I came from? Would THAT change your hearts?” Just like there were ancestors in the desert who saw God’s miraculous provision for 40 years, the miracle did not change their hearts; and those who did not believe were barred from entering Jerusalem’s gates. We see the same thing in John 6 if the disciples were to see him ascend to heaven. They sought him NOT because they witnessed the miracles, but because they only cared about its provision. So if they never believed from the beginning, what were they not believing in? Eating his flesh? That’s impossible because the idea had never crossed their minds yet. John 6 exposes our inability to follow Christ based on our own terms (fleshly motives). Motives that satisfy the flesh yield no everlasting benefit because Jesus’ pursuit is countercultural and focused on eternal life. We live by him, as our bodies live by our food. To “come” is to eat, and “believe” is to drink - Because he lives, so shall those who believe on him. Therefore, do not work for the food that perishes. Our motive for following Christ must come from hearing and learning from the Father, and those whom the Father draws are then given to Christ, and believe on him. If we seek Jesus for the wrong reasons, we will not find what we are looking for. Therefore, look to his sacrifice and believe in his saving work if you are hungry for the bread of life. The Jews’ ancestors in the desert relied on physical manna for sustenance, and yet died. Jesus is stating he is different* in substance* and in provision*, and is everlasting bread that “endures” to eternal life. The Jews perceived spiritual things in a carnal sense. This is a recurring theme throughout John as we see in the other “I Am’s”. Their temper inclined them to conceal any other sense they had of it, and to represent what our Saviour said as exceedingly absurd. They did not yet understand that by “giving”, Jesus was referring to himself being crucified. Their concept of a dying messiah was so foreign to their original plans to make him King by force in John 6. Also notice the tense of Jesus’ verb usage in verse 54. “Eats” and “drinks” are in the present tense active. A more correct way to read it is whoever “is eating” and “is drinking”… Jesus is not speaking of a periodic meal, but rather a perpetual feeding and drinking that never ceases. The disciples heard what the Jews heard. We can infer most of the Jews had already left at this point, because Jesus shifted his conversational direction to the disciples. The disciples said “this is a hard saying. Who can Agree”… ? A stumbling block. “Do you stumble at this?” If this hinders your faith, what if you were to see the son of man glorified? He is asking rhetorically if their hearts would change if they saw him ascend to heaven. He calls them out and says they were never believers to begin with. Their Fathers witnessed miraculous bread come down from heaven for 40 years in the desert, yet they still did not believe. These false disciples would then witness Jesus’s ascension and be totally unphased from God’s glory, just like their fathers who ate manna and died. The disciples left because Jesus totally stripped away their leverage for following him. There is nothing they could have said in order to use him to further benefit from his miracles. He took away the Jews’ false motive by shocking them with what appeared to be a strange idea of eating flesh. He took away the disciples false motive by proving they were never believers to begin with. A classic case of living by bread alone! The best way to get rid of false disciples and to prevent creating them, is to dismantle their motives. Witnessing a miracle alone will not get them to hear the Father. That is the entire message of John 6! It has nothing to do with the Lords supper (which was over a year later). In face, Jesus likens himself to manna, not the Passover matzoh. Totally different connotation.

IF JESUS WAS SPEAKING METAFORICALLY, NOT LITERALLY JESUS AS THE SON OF GOD COULD NOT HAVE LEFT HIS DISCIPLES GO AWAY WRONG IN THEIR THOUGHTS E WOULD HAVE HAD TO CALL THEM BACK AND TELL THEM HE NEVER MEANT IT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY, HE COULD NOT LET THEM GO BELIEVEING IN A LIE BUT CORRECTED THEIR THOUGHTS, TOM CROWLEY

Jesus's words ARE Spiritual in John 6, but Spiritual does NOT mean "symbolic".

WHY DOES HE TOTALLY DISREGARD AND FAILS TO MRNTION THE HUNDREDS OFEUCHARIST MIRACLES OVER THE CENTERIES... SOME SCIENCE AND MEDICALLY PROVEN BY INDEPENDENT SCIENCE AND MEDICAL PERSONNEL, HARD PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF THE TRUTH IN IT BEING THE BODY, BLOOD, SOUL , AND DIVINITY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CATHOLIC ANSWERS-JOHN 6:54..WHOSO EATETH MY FLESH, AND DRINKETH MY BLOOD, HATH ETERNAL LIFE; AND I WILL RAISE HIM UP AT THE LAST DAY. "WHOSO EATETH MY FLESH, AND DRINKETH MY BLOOD, HATH ETERNAL LIFE NOW". KARLO, NAME JUST ONE APOSTLE,DISCIPLE OR ANY FOLLOWER OF JESUS WHO LITERALLY ATE JESUS FLESH AND DRANK HIS BLOOD WHILE JESUS WAS STILL ALIVE TO HAVE ETERNAL LIFE?? NO ONE..!! NO ONE LITERALLY ATE JESUS FLESH AND DRANK HIS BLOOD WHILE HE WAS STILL ALIVE..!!JESUS WS SPEAKING SPIRITUALLY..!! THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU,THEY ARE SPIRIT AND THEY ARE LIFE, ETERNAL LIFE. THE EUCHARIST IS NOT CHRIST. JESUS SAID..,"IF ANYONE SAYS, HERE IS THE CHRIST(IN THE EUCHARIST) DO NOT BELIEVE IT"(MATTHEW 24:23).THE EUCHARIST WAS INVENTED BY POWER HUNGRY POPES TO HAVE CONTROL OVER THEIR DECEIVED AND DELUDED FOLLOWERS.

Jesus uses parallelism in this discourse to equate believing with eating his flesh. Note the parallel between verse 40 and verse 54: (Jn. 6:40) “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” (Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” According to this parallel, beholding and believing (v.40) are equated with eating and drinking Christ’s flesh (v.54). This is further paralleled by verse 35: (Jn. 6:35) I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. (Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” To “hunger” and “thirst” and parallel to the one who “eats” and “drinks.” But note what Jesus says satisfies our hunger: “He who comes to Me… he who believes in Me.” Jesus isn’t speaking about his literal flesh and blood any more than he is speaking about literal bread (Jn. 6:35) or literal water (Jn. 4:10-14). Indeed, Jesus uses the term sarx for his “body,” rather than the common term sōma (which was the common term used in the Lord’s Supper). Indeed, the “term ‘flesh’ is never used in the NT to refer to the Lord’s Supper.”[4] Hence, this seems “to caution against a sacramental or eucharistic understand of these verses.”[5] This is why Augustine of Hippo wrote regarding this passage: “Believe, and you have eaten.” Jesus works in metaphor’s, analogy and hyperbole. In Mark 8 Jesus uses bread language again anhesd calls out those confused thinking he’s being literal not realizing the spiritual message. Furthermore early church fathers knew NOTHING of transubstantiation. Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 180) stated that the elements do not lose the nature of bread and wine (Against Heresies, 4.18.4-5; 5.2.2). Tertullian (AD 200) said Jesus’ statement was figurative (Against Marcion, 3.19). Clement of Alexandria (AD 200) called the bread and wine symbols of Jesus’ body (The Instructor, I.6). Origen (AD 250) held his typical allegorical and spiritual view when referring to the elements in the Last Supper. Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 340) called the elements the body and blood of Christ, but also referred to them as symbolic of spiritual realities (On the Theology of the Church, 3.2.12). Augustine (AD 350) believed that John 6:53 should be understood spiritually and symbolically-not literalistically (On Christian Doctrine 3.16.2). Gelasius I (5th century pope): “The sacrament which we receive of the body and blood of Christ is a divine thing. Wherefore also by means of it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to be… Thus, as the elements pass into this, that is, the divine substance by the Holy Ghost, and none the less remain in their own proper nature.”