The Last Supper – And The Two Types of Bread

Lastsupper2

The Last Supper

And The Two Types of Bread

Most Christians are familiar with the dispute over whether Jesus was talking metaphorically or literally during the Bread of Life Discourse.

If Jesus was talking metaphorically then the eucharist is just symbolic.  If Jesus was talking literally, then the Holy Eucharist becomes, in some mysterious way, His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

St. John gives us something that is often overlooked at the Last Supper by the other Gospel writers.  He tells us that Judas received bread from the very hand of Jesus while in the Upper Room.  This bread is not the Eucharistic bread that Jesus gives to the 11 other Apostles. 

Throughout John’s Gospel, the Evangelist lays down markers pointing to something that will happen sometime in the future.  Jesus speaks about future events to help his disciples believe: “I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place, you may believe” (John 14:29).  We are to make several connections based on specific references St. John makes in his Gospel.  An example of John laying down these crumbs or markers, is when the Virgin Mary approaches Jesus to tell him that the wedding feast has ran out of wine.  Jesus responds, John 2:4, “Woman, what does that have to do with us?  My hour has not yet come.”  Several times in Johns Gospel references are made that “My hour has not yet come or My time has not yet come.”  Besides John 2:4 other examples of “My time or My hour” include:  John 7:6-8, 30, John 8:20.  These markers point to John 12 and 13 where Jesus’ hour does come.

This is one of the ways St. John leads us into the revealed and Holy Spirit inspired Word of God.  We should take note of these markers or pointers that John laid down for us.  When we connect the dots, the Gospel opens up and we discover what the Holy Spirit inspired words of the Gospel writer wants us to see in the passages.  Another veil is peeled away and our understanding of the Gospels grow.

A careful study of several scenes in Johns Gospel is significant to understanding the Bread of Life Discourse in its proper context.  It’s always been believed by the Early Church Fathers that St. John writes his Gospel to supplement the synoptic gospels.

But before we look at Johns Gospel we need to look at several scenes from Matthew’s Gospel to supplement our understanding of what John reveals to us in his account of the Last Supper.

In St Matthew’s account of “The Temptation of Jesus,”  after receiving the Baptism of John the Baptist, Jesus was led, by the Holy Spirit, into the wilderness to engage the devil.

Matthew 4:3-4

And the tempter came and said to Him, “If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.”  But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God’”

The question begs to be asked, “Did satan not know that Jesus was the Son of God?”  The devil is aware of the scriptures in the Book of Moses and the Prophets, that the Messiah has come into the world: The Incarnation of the Word (Logos) became Flesh, and the Baptism of Jesus.

What satan asks Jesus to do is change the lifeless stones into something substantial that would provide sustenance after His 40 days of fasting and praying in the desert.  This is an allusion to the Exodus and the 40 years that the Jews wandered in the desert.

Jesus asks in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 7:9, “Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone?”  Again, the mention of the stone and the bread.  The tempter asks that stone be turned to bread and then the Father giving his son stone when he asks for bread.  God the Father gives us the True Bread which is Christ.  But that Bread must be Blessed and Consecrated to become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Jesus, in the divinely given Lords Prayer, has us pray to “Give us this day our daily bread.”  The Greek word Epiousios which is translated “daily” can also be translated as “supersubstantial” and this is how St. Jerome translated this word in the Latin Vulgate.

With this in mind, we will now focus on what St. John is pointing us to.  Without getting into the entire controversy of the Bread of Life Discourse, the focus will be on several verses that the Evangelist highlights and wants us to understand and see a connection.

 The Bread of Life Discourse

In verse 6:45 Jesus says this: “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.'(…..).” he is evoking both Isaiah 54:13 and Jeremiah 31:33ff, where both prophets refer to the future Covenant which God will establish with his people when the Messiah comes, the Covenant which will be sealed forever with the blood of the Messiah and which God will write on their hearts.  This is a clear link to the Discourse and the Last Supper where Jesus Institutes the Holy Eucharist and the New Covenant.  Another dot.

In the Bread of Life Discourse, we know that the learned Jews are grumbling among themselves when Jesus says in verse 6:41 “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.” Jesus also reveals that He is “The Bread of Life and that we must Eat His Body and Drink His Blood.”

Any Jew reading John 6 would be aware that the Jews in the desert were grumbling because they were hungry, as noted in Exodus 16 and 17.  God of course provides.  He provides Water, the Manna and Flesh (Quail) for the Jews to survive in the wilderness.  St. John also tells us that the Bread of Life Discourse, as well as the feeding of the 5,000 and the Walking on Water is near the time of the Passover.  He drops another dot for us to connect later on.

With this in mind we need to look at another significant verse:

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!

In verse 6:62, Jesus is referring to a future event by saying “What if…”  We, the readers, of course know that Jesus will be Resurrected, but the Apostles and Disciples don’t yet know this.  So, Jesus is asking them to put their faith in him, even if it is just based on seeing the signs and miracles he has displayed before them.  Another dot to connect later on.

Because the Jews took Jesus literally, that he was asking them to do what the Torah explicitly condemns, they no longer walked with him, as revealed in John 6:66.  Jesus lets them go, as if to say, “I shake off the dust from my feet” or “Let the dead bury the dead,” He lets them walk away.  No explanation, no calling them back to explain that He was talking metaphorically, or symbolically or even sacramentally.  He doesn’t stop them and explain to them that He is the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity.  He doesn’t call them back and say its all a misunderstanding and just hang with me a little longer.  None of these things are said or done.  Jesus, without any explaination given to them or to the Apostles, watch as they walk away from the Word made Flesh.

 66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?”
71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.

Notice that Jesus himself links Judas to satan and St. John links Judas as the one who will betray him.  Simon Peter asks the question that we all must ask:  “Lord, to whom shall we go?  You have the words of eternal life.”  Judas hears these words also.  Judas stays and doesn’t leave with the other disciples for John 6:66.  Here is another dot to connect later on.

St. Johns Account of The Last Supper

imagesCAF5GDC7John 13:21-30
21 After saying this Jesus was troubled in spirit, and declared, “Very truly, I tell you, one of you will betray me.”
22 The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he was speaking.
23 One of his disciples—the one whom Jesus loved—was reclining next to him;
24 Simon Peter therefore motioned to him to ask Jesus of whom he was speaking.
25 So while reclining next to Jesus, he asked him, “Lord, who is it?”
26 Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” a So when he had dipped the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot. b
27 After he received the piece of bread, c Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “Do quickly what you are going to do.”
28 Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him.
29 Some thought that, because Judas had the common purse, Jesus was telling him, “Buy what we need for the festival”; or, that he should give something to the poor.
30 So, after receiving the piece of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night.

Now turning to the Last Supper in John Chapter 13, Jesus and the 12 Apostles are in the Upper Room for the celebration of the Passover Meal.  The Passover Meal, in the time of Jesus, was an event that took hours to complete.   In verse 13:2, during the long celebration of Passover, Jesus rises up and washes the disciples feet, and definitely washed the feet of Judas as well.  Because the Passover Meal is hours long, containing many parts and many offerings of bread and wine, it may appear that Jesus could have already Instituted the Holy Eucharist while Judas is present.  But it is very unlikely because why would Jesus speak the words of Institution, whether we are speaking of the Holy Eucharist as His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, or in a spiritual sense, as most Protestant denominations prefer to understand it while Judas is there.  Would Jesus offer Satan His body and blood?

I propose that this is unlikely.  Luke has Judas participating in the Last Supper during institution, but scholars have noted that Luke doesn’t put many events in time-order.

In verse 13:21, Jesus echo’s the same dire warning again, that one of them, the 12, will betray Him, see John 6:70-71. Jesus here is himself pointing us to the connection of the Discourse to St. Johns account of the Last Supper.  Another dot.

The Apostles, of course don’t know which one of them will betray Jesus.  John 13:24: So Simon Peter asks St. John, who has his head on the bosom of Christ, (where else should one ever place their head to rest), “Tell us to who He is speaking.”  Jesus then says in 13:26, “it is the one to whom I give this piece of bread…..”  He gave it to Judas.  Note that again, only these two Apostles are mentioned by name.  Another dot to connect later on.

St. John does not give us any other details of The Last Supper or The Institution of the Eucharist.  That has been given by the other Gospel writers.  We have John’s eyewitness account of Jesus giving ordinary, unblessed, unconsecrated bread to Judas.   Jesus, according to the other Gospel writers takes Bread, Blesses it and says “This is My Body and This is My Blood.”  This is the Institution of the Holy Eucharist and Jesus thus reveals the full meaning of the Bread of Life Discourse with the word: “This is My Body, This is My Blood.”

 The Two Types of Bread at the Last Supper

The bread of denial

The Bread of Life

The first bread offered during the Last Supper is symbolic of nothing but the denial of Jesus as the Son of God.  It was unsubstantial bread and it is, as Judas represents, the denial of the very words of Jesus Christ as Our Lord and Savior.

The second Bread is the Word that Becomes Flesh.  His Flesh is True Food and  His Blood is True Drink indeed.  It is Supersubstantial Bread; greater than the Manna and the Flesh that the Jews ate in the wilderness and died.  This Bread that He gives us is to Eternal Life.

The first bread was ordinary bread and is devoid of the eternal life that Jesus says we will receive when we Eat of His Body and Drink of His Blood, when it is blessed and consecrated by the power of the Holy Spirit.  The Early Church, founded upon the faith of the Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit, has celebrated the Divine Liturgy from the very beginning of the Apostolic Churches, right up to this very day.

Of the four Gospels only St. John indicates there were two types of bread.  Was St. John letting us know this?  We know that St. John relates other scenes that the other writers didn’t mention.  What is equally important to note is not just that Judas receives unblessed bread from the hand of Jesus, but that there is only 2 types of bread, not 3 or 4 types of bread.  The first bread is ordinary bread, contrasted by his dipping it into sop; the second bread is held up and the words, This is My Body, et., etc., are invoked.  Another dot.

St. John is an eyewitness during the scene in the Upper Room.  He sees Jesus give Judas the unblessed bread.  The disciples did not know why Judas leaves the Last Supper supposing him to be on an errand.  They do not know the real reason of his leaving until a few days later.  Judas was banished from the Institution of the Holy Eucharist.  He was truly deaf, blind and fractured.

When Jesus hands Judas the unblessed bread, satan and Judas became one.  Each abiding one in the other.

When Jesus blesses the First Eucharist, he institutes the New Covenant.  Judas and therefore satan are not witnesses of this Holy Sacrament instituted by our new High Priest.

When Jesus gives the blessed bread to the disciples from the Road to Emmaus, they immediately recognize him and he disappears; not bound by space and time.  Those who partake of a symbolic wafer or cracker, also do not recognize Jesus, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in this Holy Sacrament.

Let’s connect the dots:

  • During the Exodus, God provides Manna in the morning and Flesh in the evening.  At the Last Supper, Jesus takes Bread and says “This is My Body.”  His body is His Flesh as he also stated in the Bread of Life Discourse.
  • Jesus, in the Bread of Life Discourse evokes the prophets that God will establish a New Covenant with his people.  This is the cup of the New Covenant.  (Matthew 26:28, Luke 22:25, 1 Cor 11:25)
  • Both the Bread of Life Discourse and the Last Supper occur near or on the Passover.
  • Jesus connects the The Bread of Life Discourse to the Last Supper with the same dire warning of betrayal.
  • Two named Apostles at the Bread of Life Discourse are linked to the Last Supper: Simon Peter and Judas.
  • Two named Apostles at the Last Supper in the Upper Room: Simon Peter and Judas.
  • At the Bread of Life Discourse, The Bread of Life is denied thus denying the Divinity of Christ Jesus, and the disciples leave Jesus: John 6:66
  • Judas and Satan leave the Upper Room, and therefore are not witnesses to the Institution of the Eucharist: John 13:27 and John 13:30
  • At the Last Supper, two types of bread are given.  The first bread given is the bread of denial given to Judas, who should have left Jesus in John 6:66.
  • The second Bread given to the other Apostles, although not mentioned by John, is the Institution of the Eucharist, by the Word made Flesh.

To fully undertand the Holy Eucharist as the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, it is paramount to look at the Liturgical Worship of the Early Apostolic Church.  The Bread of Life Discourse is to be understood both Spiritually and Sacramentally, in tandum and fully revealed to the Apostles after the resurrection of our Lord and Savior; under the guidence of the Holy Spirit.

In Christ,

R. Zell.

7/26/2015

Just as an aside:  John 21:20, St. John is again pointing us to the Last Supper one more time to highlight it’s importance to us.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “The Last Supper – And The Two Types of Bread

  1. MJ: I have detected so many holes in this article, I was reminded of a slice of swiss cheese.

    RZ: St. John gives us something that is often overlooked at the Last Supper by the other Gospel writers. He tells us that Judas received bread from the very hand of Jesus while in the Upper Room.

    MJ: I believe “The Judas Factor” is an extremely weak apologetic whether one is arguing either for or against the RC Eucharist. In any case, you repeatedly mention the significance of John’s gospel, yet you know very well that this is the only gospel that does NOT contain the institution of the Eucharist.
    John’s gospel is significant, yes, but it militates against your position. By understanding Jesus metaphorically, it all makes sense. The Protestant view allows his audience in chapter 6 to obey Christ right there on the spot, while the Catholic scheme has Jesus commanding them to do the impossible; namely, to consume him in “sacramental form” which they could not possibly do right there on the spot. Even if Transubstantiation were true, it would not be taught until a year later at the Last Supper; and would not be “officially” defined until 1,500 years later at the Council of Trent. Therefore, our interpretation has the upper hand. Essentially, the Evangelical/Protestant position allows the Text to breathe on its own, giving the audience in chapter 6 the opportunity to do as Christ commanded; namely, to believe on him (aka, eating his flesh and drinking his blood). When the papal position is anachronistically read back into the Text, there are immediate problems. You admit:

    RZ: the Jews took Jesus literally, that he was asking them to do what the Torah explicitly condemns

    MJ: We agree that the Jews took Jesus literally. And where, may I ask, did THAT notion get them Mr. Zell? Nothing but a passport to hell. Which will be your fate also I’m afraid if you don’t wake up out of your spiritual coma.
    But O.K., let us suppose Jesus was commanding them to actually eat him. How, pray tell, would his audience comply with this command? Catholics can give us nothing but a blank stare.

    RZ: Jesus speaks about future events to help his disciples believe: “I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place, you may believe” (John 14:29).

    MJ: However, the Text clearly says he was speaking to unbelievers (6:36), so to equate these people with the disciples is out of order. We notice the catechism uses this same trick. They tell us that John 6 was a …”preparation”… for the institution of the Eucharist (1338), as well as an… “extended promise… of what would be instituted at the Last Supper” (Keating, “Catholicism & Fundamentalism”, p. 234). However, these assertions fall to pieces when one realizes that John’s gospel is the only book which claims to stand alone, in that the author thought the content by itself, ALONE, was sufficient to grasp the message of salvation. “These are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you might have life in his name” (20:31). The ability of John’s gospel to stand alone is detrimental to the Catholic position because Rome claims that the episode in John 6 was a promise for eternal life via the Eucharist which would later be instituted the following year at the Last Supper. But without the Last Supper account, the promise of eternal life via the Eucharist (which Rome claims is necessary for salvation) does not exist! Contextually, the discussion centers on salvation by believing in JESUS, not on the Lord’s Supper which was chronologically in the distant future. If the Catholic opinion were true, the Holy Spirit would have accentuated the Last Supper account to ensure the promise was fulfilled and its connection with chapter 6 firmly established. Yet this did not happen. As a result, anyone reading John’s gospel by itself and WITHOUT the “words of institution” recited at the Last Supper included, could not possibly imagine the concept of Transubstantiation as the “extended promise” of chapter 6, let alone as a necessity for eternal life. For, “Only by aligning chapter 6 with their interpretation of the passages with the Last Supper, can the RCC arrive at its teaching on Transubstantiation” (“Salvation, the Bible & Roman Catholicism”, by Webster, p. 66).

    Remember, he was asking them to do something “NOW”, on the spot, without bread and wine, so how were they to comply if Transubstantiation were the point? Answer? They could not comply in any literal, “eucharistic sense” at all because “my flesh which I will give for the life of the world” (John 6:51) is future tense, referring to the giving of his flesh at Calvary, not that they should actually it. Thus, it is impossible to believe they should be expected to observe that ordinance ”NOW”, which would be reserved only for committed believers, in the future! We look yonder to chapter 7 so as to better understand chapter 6. The Last Supper was still yet to come when he said, “If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink”. How could anyone answer this call on the spot without bread and wine? The answer is given in the next sentence: “He that believeth on me, out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive”.

    Therefore, because the Holy Spirit decided not to sprinkle the salt and pepper of the Last Supper account into the gospel of John, the doctrine of Transubstantiation simply cannot be true. We are told it is a book that is sufficient in and of itself when it comes to seeking salvation. But without the Last Supper account, the tie which Catholics think binds chapter 6 to the upper room event, is broken, and thus, finding salvation by means of the Eucharist by using this gospel alone, becomes impossible. That being so, the only way to understand the vivid imagery of Jesus in chapter 6 is metaphorically. From that point of view, salvation becomes instantly attainable when someone simply comes to believe in the Messiah, which just so happens to be the very essence of John’s gospel from beginning to end.

    RZ: But before we look at Johns Gospel we need to look at several scenes from Matthew’s Gospel to supplement our understanding of what John reveals to us in his account of the Last Supper. “And the tempter came and said to Him, “If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” (Matt 4:3-4).

    MJ: This supposed “proof” is nullified by Matt 3:9, where God is also able to turn stones into HUMAN BEINGS should he so desire
    “I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham”.
    Since there is no “bread change” in M-3-9 which you would like to connect to the Last Supper, your apologetic for “bread-change” in M-4-3 is cancelled out by virtue of this second example of God’s ability to change things, but which has nothing to do with what you’re trying to prove! This is called, “comparing Scripture with Scripture” (1 Cor 2:13). Try it sometime.

    RZ: His Flesh is True Food and His Blood is True Drink indeed.

    MJ: Again, when we compare S with S, per 1 Cor 2:13, your supposition fails. You suppose that an emphasis on “true” qualifies for the flesh being literal. It does not. Recall however, that Jesus is also the “true light” (John 1:9), the “true vine” (15:1) and the “true bread” (6:32), all of which are “truly” emphasized, and all of which Catholicism admits are metaphorical. That said, “true food” and “true drink” are in harmonious, metaphorical unity with the others. Thus, when comparing S with S, the Catholic argument disappears into nothingness.

    RZ: He lets them walk away. No explanation, no calling them back to explain that He was talking metaphorically, or symbolically or even sacramentally. He doesn’t stop them and explain to them…

    MJ: This complaint ignores the biblical data which clearly shows that God is under no obligation to spell out everything to the satisfaction of all mankind! Any apologetic that supposes God could have, would have and SHOULD have done something to clarify the issue to the entire satisfaction of the world, ignores the right of Divine Providence to “take away the sight of those who claim they can see” (John 9:39-41). That he has intentionally ordained many to remain clueless is a premise that cannot be denied, and all for his own good reasons, “for even so Father, so it seemed right in thy sight” (Matt 11:25-6; cf. Isa 6:9-10; 13:35; Mk 4:11-12, Luke 8:10, 10:22; John 6:44, 12:40, 17:6; Rms 11:7-8; 1 Pet 2:8).

    RZ: When Jesus gives the blessed bread to the disciples from the Road to Emmaus, they immediately recognize him and he disappears

    MJ: The catechism simply assumes, without proof, that the breaking of bread with those on the road to Emmaus, was transubstantiated Eucharist bread (CCC 1329). They say because the two men recognized the Lord after eating the bread, that this signifies all future believers will recognize the Lord in the Eucharist as well. But this is pure eisegesis!

    Did you ever stop to consider that while Jesus was breaking bread, they could have noticed the nail prints in his hands and THAT’S how they knew him? If it wasn’t the nail scars in his hands, may we not suppose their eyes were opened to a brief glimpse at his resurrected body, which was akin to his appearance on the Mount of Transfiguration? These two possibilities do away with them recognizing him as a result of Transubstantiation having occurred.
    At the table with these men on the road to Emmaus, he took the bread, blessed it, broke it, gave thanks and dispatched it. During the miracle of the loaves, he took the bread, blessed it, broke it, gave thanks and dispatched it. Consequently, the breaking and blessing of bread was simply a common element of Hebrew hospitality; and since no Catholic on earth believes in transubstantiated bread at the miracle of the loaves, then it is unwarranted to presume it does in Luke 24 with the men on the road to Emmaus, or where we read of the same in Acts 2:46.

    We contend every singe Catholic doctrine, no matter WHAT it is, can be over-ruled with a more sober, reasonable and biblical explanation then what THEY would have us to believe.

    Like

    • Mo: John’s gospel is significant, yes, but it militates against your position. By understanding Jesus metaphorically, it all makes sense.
      ME: The problem is that understanding the entire Bread of Life Discourse is not understanding the Bread of Life Discourse. The Catholic Church takes the entire Gospel. I show links from the Discourse leading straight to the Last Supper (and to the Ascension) and the revelation of everything Jesus speaks of at the Discourse.

      The Early Church understood Jesus was speaking literally and sacramentally at the Last Supper. You stand with the Gnostics on this one.

      As for John not having the Institution of the Eucharist also proves my point that Judas and therefore Satan are not witnesses to the Institution. And not being witnesses also points to Protestants not being witnesses to it as we see Protestants deny this by eating a symbolic piece of bread. Jesus blessed bread at the Last Supper. Judas received unblessed bread at the Last supper. So John not mentioning it, as he doesn’t mention other accounts which the synoptics do mention is meaningless to this argument.

      Mo: The Protestant view allows his audience in chapter 6 to obey Christ right there on the spot, while the Catholic scheme has Jesus commanding them to do the impossible; namely, to consume him in “sacramental form” which they could not possibly do right there on the spot.

      ME: The Protestant view denies the very words of Christ at the Last Supper. Jesus says: This is my Body. and protestants say “This is not his body.” The exact opposite. The Nicolaitans had a view, the Arians had a view, the Nestorian had a view and so has every heretical schismatic group that broke away from the One Church He did establish. Your’s is no different.

      MO JO: Even if Transubstantiation were true, it would not be taught until a year later at the Last Supper; and would not be “officially” defined until 1,500 years later at the Council of Trent.
      ME: The words of Christ: “This is my Body” were never denied after the Gnostics were confronted. Also you can’t deny that there is growth and development of doctrine can you? The Trinity isn’t defined until almost 300 years after Christ.

      Mo JO: Essentially, the Evangelical/Protestant position allows the Text to breathe on its own, giving the audience in chapter 6 the opportunity to do as Christ commanded; namely, to believe on him (aka, eating his flesh and drinking his blood).

      ME: You problem is that the Evangelical/Protestant position is in direct conflict with the Fathers of the Church who received from the Apostles what they learned from Christ Jesus Himself. The audience in Chapter 6 were the Protestors who denied Christ’s very words at the Discourse. You are standing with them.

      Mo JO: But O.K., let us suppose Jesus was commanding them to actually eat him. How, pray tell, would his audience comply with this command? Catholics can give us nothing but a blank stare.
      ME: What if you were to see Jesus Ascending to heaven? (John 6:62) Would you believe it? Mo Jo, I’m afraid you would have walked away for the Protestors of John 6:66.

      MoJO: You say: However, the Text clearly says he was speaking to unbelievers (6:36), so to equate these people with the disciples is out of order.

      ME: He was speaking to them after the multiplication of the Loaves. They were looking for a military messiah.

      MoJO: The ability of John’s gospel to stand alone is detrimental to the Catholic position because Rome claims that the episode in John 6 was a promise for eternal life via the Eucharist which would later be instituted the following year at the Last Supper.

      ME: Honestly, I see more proof-texting from Protestant on everything. Again, the Catholic Church takes the entire bible into consideration. They is why there are 4 Gospels. Why don’t the Apostles walk away? They waited a year? None of the 4 Gospels stands alone. Another one of your mistakes. If we had only 1 gospel, we would not have a complete picture or the complete deposit of faith. You fall here Mo Jo.

      MO JO: You say: Remember, he was asking them to do something “NOW”, on the spot, without bread and wine, so how were they to comply if Transubstantiation were the point? Answer?

      ME: They ask Jesus in 6:34 ~ “Lord, aways give us this bread.” Now the Discourse starts in verse 35. He is teaching them. Your NOW assertion is lacking. You are so off.

      MoJo: You say: If the Catholic opinion were true, the Holy Spirit would have accentuated the Last Supper account to ensure the promise was fulfilled and its connection with chapter 6 firmly established. Yet this did not happen.

      ME: Actually it did happen and that is why the Church Fathers had a liturgy of the Holy Eucharist. And Paul 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 bare this out. Nobody gets sick and dies from eating a symbol. Except Judas who is given the symbolic bread of denial from the very hand of Christ Himself.

      MoJo: Therefore, because the Holy Spirit decided not to sprinkle the salt and pepper of the Last Supper account into the gospel of John, the doctrine of Transubstantiation simply cannot be true. We are told it is a book that is sufficient in and of itself when it comes to seeking salvation.

      ME: Except that the Apostles, the disciples, those that came after them and up to 1517, the Holy Spirit guided the Church and the Holy Eucharist is always believed to be the Flesh of Christ, just like he said. Only the Heretical Gnostics believed otherwise and then along comes the Reformation.

      MoJo: We look yonder to chapter 7 so as to better understand chapter 6. The Last Supper was still yet to come when he said, “If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink”. How could anyone answer this call on the spot without bread and wine? The answer is given in the next sentence: “He that believeth on me, out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive”.

      ME: Fully compatible with what the Catholic Church believes. The problem is “This is my Body” is being denied by Judas and the Gnostics straight to the Reformation and those that come after them.

      MoJo: This supposed “proof” is nullified by Matt 3:9,…….
      ME: Sorry, but the context isn’t the same. Nice try though.

      MoJO; MJ: Again, when we compare S with S, per 1 Cor 2:13, your supposition fails. You suppose that an emphasis on “true” qualifies for the flesh being literal. It does not. Recall however, that Jesus is also the “true light” (John 1:9), the “true vine” (15:1) and the “true bread” (6:32), all of which are “truly” emphasized, and all of which Catholicism admits are metaphorical. That said, “true food” and “true drink” are in harmonious, metaphorical unity with the others. Thus, when comparing S with S, the Catholic argument disappears into nothingness.

      ME: Sorry MoJo, your problem here is that Jesus is actually holding up bread at the Last Supper. Jesus isn’t holding up a flashlight, a vine, but Bread. The discourse is linked to the Last Supper as I showed in John 6:4, 70 and 71.

      MoJo: MJ: This complaint ignores the biblical data which clearly shows that God is under no obligation to spell out everything to the satisfaction of all mankind!

      ME: Agreed. And this is why Jesus Christ left us a Church guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth. This is why the Gnostics were defeated and we encounter them 1500 years later, again denying that the Holy Eucharist is the Flesh of Christ.

      MoJo: That he has intentionally ordained many to remain clueless is a premise that cannot be denied, and all for his own good reasons, “for even so Father, so it seemed right in thy sight” (Matt 11:25-6; cf. Isa 6:9-10; 13:35; Mk 4:11-12, Luke 8:10, 10:22; John 6:44, 12:40, 17:6; Rms 11:7-8; 1 Pet 2:8).
      ME: You just described the CHAOS in Protestantism today. You are absolutely correct here. This is why I am Catholic and not Protestants.

      MoJo: MJ: The catechism simply assumes, without proof, that the breaking of bread with those on the road to Emmaus, was transubstantiated Eucharist bread (CCC 1329). They say because the two men recognized the Lord after eating the bread, that this signifies all future believers will recognize the Lord in the Eucharist as well. But this is pure eisegesis!

      ME: This is how this scene has been interpreted since antiquity. You must deny the Discourse linked to the Last Supper and linked to the Road to Emmaus. The same formula is used at the Last Supper as it is when they sat to eat. But Luke 24:35 confirms it and there are no accidents or coincidences in scripture.

      MoJo. Did you ever stop to consider that while Jesus was breaking bread, they could have noticed the nail prints in his hands and THAT’S how they knew him? If it wasn’t the nail scars in his hands, may we not suppose their eyes were opened to a brief glimpse at his resurrected body, which was akin to his appearance on the Mount of Transfiguration? These two possibilities do away with them recognizing him as a result of Transubstantiation having occurred.

      ME: The disciples on the Road were prevented from recognizing Him. Just as you and Protestants are prevented from recognizing “This is my Body.” But what you are saying is just conjecture as well.

      MoJo: Consequently, the breaking and blessing of bread was simply a common element of Hebrew hospitality; and since no Catholic on earth believes in transubstantiated bread at the miracle of the loaves, then it is unwarranted to presume it does in Luke 24 with the men on the road to Emmaus, or where we read of the same in Acts 2:46.

      ME: It’s called Typology and the Loaves are a prefigurement of the Holy Eucharist. That is why it occurs along with the Bread of Life Discourse. Also, we don’t know if those disciples were even ai the Discourse for one this. You assume much here.

      Again: This is why the Zell Challenge is so significant. We have the earliest witnesses to Christianity defending the Holy Eucharist against the first heretics, the Gnostics, who hold a similar view that the Eucharist wasn’t His Body.

      I’ll go with Jesus on this one. You can go with the very first Protestants we meet at the Discourse and the protestants which come in the 16th century.

      Like

      • Again: “TAKE, EAT, THIS IS MY metaphorical BODY.”

        No Mo Jo, the only metaphorical bread given at the Last Supper is given to Judas by the very hand of Christ Jesus Himself.

        Jesus is telling you there is 2 types of bread, not me. One bread is blessed and leads to eternal life. The other bread is unblessed and leads to a union with Satan.

        In the Middle East Catholics, Orthodox, Assyrians, Coptics risk their lives to go to Church. They are martyred in the way to Church. They are martyred on the way home from Church. And they are even martyred while in Church. Protestants can stay home and watch a sermon on the TV. Yet, true Christians go to their Church to receive the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of their Savior, unto eternal life.

        Like

        • RZ: Jesus is telling you there is 2 types of bread, not me.

          MJ: Oh really? And where do we read of the Catholic tradition which supports THAT double whammy?
          Answer?
          NOWHERE.
          Naturally you remind me of the Council of Trent when they put a word in Jesus’ mouth which not one Bible on Earth records. I told you of this elsewhere, to which you had no reply except that I did not deserve a cigar. On the contrary, I think I deserve a bouquet of roses if I do say so myself.
          Quoting Trent, the catechism states, “Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly His body He was offering under the species of bread” (#1376).

          The student of the Bible knows the above is pure nonsense, as Jesus did not say any such thing. Trent was on a mission to counter-atteack the Reformers, as are you, and in their pompous zeal, overstated their case, which proves instantly, they were not infallible, let alone being guided by the Spirit as they claimed TWICE in their decree on the Eucharist.
          Jesus did not “SAY” that he was “OFFERING” anything, let alone that the bread was “TRULY” his body.
          Trent tells us, like you, what they THINK he meant…. and then quote him as if he had said so! This is dishonest to say the least. Such behavior would not be tolerated in any school of journalism, let alone are we to tolerate it coming from a self-proclaimed “infallible” church council. Neither should we tolerate your ridiculous “two bread” fairy tale.

          RZ: One bread is blessed and leads to eternal life. The other bread is unblessed and leads to a union with Satan.

          MJ: Baloney. The reason Catholics have to come up with these dumb theories is because the Bible simply does not contain, nor does it explain, Eucharistic theology that coincides with papal protocol. It does, however, give abundant evidence that Protestants are correct in understaning the “cannibal” verses as metaphorical. With no place to go, Catholics are then forced to come up with grievous nonsense such as Jesus “offering” himself up in sacrifice at the Last Supper BEFORE he goes to the cross (so they can justify the L.S. being the “first mass”).
          So get a clue: Jesus did not break through the curtain of this world to play hide and seek in a piece of bread, so that we may swallow it for eternal life. THAT IS NOT THE GOSPEL. That is idolatry.
          Besides, since no one can really ever reconcile the supposed “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist with any sort of natural philosophy, why even try? –especially in light of the fact that God is thoroughly against doctrines which promote controversial speculation (1 Tim 3). And Transubstantiation is as controversial as it gets!

          Like

    • There are zero holes in this article.

      You refuse to believe that Jesus Himself links the Bread of Life Discourse and the Last Supper. Here is the passages that link them:

      John 6:64,70-71 RSV
      But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. [70] Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” [71] He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.

      John not mentioning the details of the Last Supper as the Synoptics do, is of no consequence.

      There is also a linking of the Road to Emmaus as well.

      In verse 16 it says they were prevented from recognizing Jesus.  Several things here.  Without true faith we will not recognize Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.   Those 2 disciples   were walking with Jesus in a state of ignorance about His whole ministry.  Look at verse:  Luke 24:19 NASB

      And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was *A PROPHET* mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people,

      They did not recognize that Jesus was the Son of God, just like the disciples of John 6:66 didn’t  (they are the very first Protestants).   They said He was a “prophet, mighty in word and deed.” 

      Think about this: Jesus comes to them (this is Grace), they hear the Word of God (Liturgy of the Word), as they walk with Him (our personal journey), and then they receive the breaking of the Bread (the Divine Liturgy of the Holy Eucharist) where they recognize what those in John 6 :66 failed to recognize: They recognize Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.   See John 6:62-63 – John 6:62-63 NASB

      What then IF YOU SEE the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? [63] It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

      John 6:62 is talking about a future event where the Bread of Life Discourse will be revealed.  At the breaking of the Bread, Jesus is recognized.  Those disciples go to the Apostles, and the Apostles go and tell us thru their living witness, etc, etc,.

      On another level the Bread of Life Discourse is revealed at the Last Supper and confirmed on the Road to Emmaus.  Full circle. 

      Again, Mo Jo, you will find zero holes in this paper. What you should find is that a symbolic piece is the same bread Judas eat and Satan enters him. Eat the Holy Eucharist in an unworthy manner, which is not to discern the Body and Blood, brings with it spiritual sickness and even spiritual death. Only the Orthodox, Assyrian, Coptic and Catholic Churches can bless and consecrated ordinary bread into: “Take, eat, THIS IS MY BODY.”

      Like

      • RZ: John not mentioning the details of the Last Supper as the Synoptics do, is of no consequence.

        MJ: It is of GREAT consequence — and I believe I made my case VERY clear in my previous comments. You MUST have the Last Supper account in the gospel of John ***IF*** what Catholicism says is true about the Eucharist being necessary for salvation. John says that salvation may be found in his gospel alone, and so, since the RCC teaches that swallowing the wafer is mandatory for eternal life, the casual observer is left up a creek without a paddle. Without the “words of institution” made at the L.S. to tie in with Christ (allegedly) speaking literally in chapter 6, the reader is unable to find “the fullness of salvation” in John’s gospel alone! Non-catholics have no problem with the L.S. account being absent from John’s gospel.
        All you do is deny it and say it doesn’t matter. I’m afraid that is not good enough. Desperate for a way out, you try this trick:

        RZ: You refuse to believe that Jesus Himself links the Bread of Life Discourse and the Last Supper. Here is the passages that link them:
        John 6:64,70-71 RSV
        “But there are some of you that do not believe. For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. [70] Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” [71] He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.

        MJ: Nice try, but you lose. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re trying to convince us that because Jesus made a reference to Judas’ betrayal at the Last Supper after the Bread of Life discourse, all problems are solved.
        Ummm…no they aren’t. Your entire “two bread” thesis fails because you assume that the words “was to betray him”…were to officially occur at the Last Supper. That way, Judas can serve as an example of a rat fink, like all Protestants, who dropped Jesus like a hot potato in the midst of where Transubstantiation had supposedly occurred.
        NO. That we’re told from the other gospels that Judas abandoned ship during the distribution of bread is certainly not the “9/11” event to make your case. You forget that Judas had already betrayed Jesus BEFORE the Last Supper (Matt 26:14-16), and that the L.S. merely gave him the opportunity… (not motive) he was looking for in order to officially betray his Master. Hence, your Bread of Life strategy which hopes to find a connection with Judas being served another type of bread at the Last Supper due to his betrayal ***AT*** the Last Supper, is a weak link because Judas was ALREADY in a state of denial which had nothing to do with any issue involving Eucharistic bread at all.

        RZ: There is also a linking of the Road to Emmaus as well. In verse 16 it says they were prevented from recognizing Jesus.

        MJ: I already made my case about the E-Road episode in the previous comments above and you just ignore it. Methinks my explanation is far more persuasive. Yourssimply reeks of desperation.

        RZ: Without true faith we will not recognize Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.

        MJ: You are defining “true faith” as that which requires Transubstantiation occurs after a priest (an office unknown in the N.T.) says the magic words. We emphatically deny this. “True faith” is believing in the life and death merits of what Christ has done FOR us, period, end of story. The gospel does not have anything whatsoever to do with our carnal appetites. The E-Road episode is clear enough without importing foreign concepts into the mix, as is your habit.
        Going back to the L.S. for a moment, if Transubstantiation had occurred and “I will no longer drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God”, that leaves us with the horrific thought that he will drink his own blood throughout eternity! Since that can’t be true, neither is Transubstantiation true. That said, I repeat from before: The recognition of who Christ was after he vanished out of their sight does not necessarily mean the Tranz had occurred. They could have noticed the nail prints in his hands …OR…. their eyes were opened to a brief glimpse at his resurrected body, which was akin to his appearance on the Mount of Transfiguration. The fact is, the “tranz” is simply not needed to make sense out of the passages. You wish to foist a foreign meaning into the Text instead of letting the Holy Spirit breathe on his own. My explanation, coupled with the silence of the Text as to the EXACT reason for the “recognition”, makes much more sense than obeying the magisterium which has the pernicious habit of always reading things BACK INTO the Bible and frankly, we’re sick of it.

        RZ: Those 2 disciples were walking with Jesus in a state of ignorance about His whole ministry… they did not recognize that he was the Son of God…

        MJ: So what? ***I*** believe Jesus is the Son of God and I utterly reject the RC Eucharist for what it is. “Houston”, as they say, “I think we’ve got a problem with Zell’s theology”. The Text reads, , “Then opened he their eyes to understand the Scriptures”, and they began to understand bit by bit, just as when he healed the blind man bit by bit (to show we get spiritual light bit by bit as we progress towards maturity). Then as they progressed towards the dinner table, their heart burned within them as he spoke and at the end of the day, they recognized them.

        RZ: just like the disciples of John 6:66 didn’t [recognize him] (they are the very first Protestants).

        MJ: It is beyond ridiculous to compare the unbelievers in chapter 6 to BELIEVING non-Catholics world-wide. The analogy is instantly faulty because persons such as myself have done exactly what he commanded in response to their question: “This is the work of God: to believe on him whom he has sent”. The Eucharist has nothing whatsoever to do with our coming to that realization, since we know the Holy Spirit goes about like the wind, tapping on the shoulder those ordained for salvation (John 3:8), via the means of the “foolishness of preaching” (1 Cor 1:21) and consequently, “born again by the word of God” (1 Peter 1:23).

        RZ: John 6:62-63… What then IF YOU SEE the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? [He] is talking about a future event where the Bread of Life Discourse will be revealed.

        MJ: Technically, the ascension of Jesus into heaven has nothing at all to do with Transubstantiation (even if it were true). When they watched him be taken away by a cloud, any talk of his being the Bread of Life in conjunction with the Eucharist is nowhere in sight.

        RZ: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”

        MJ: Yeah, so what? Apparently it doesn’t occur to you that he JUST might be intimating that eating his flesh might profit nothing and you, sir, are barking up the wrong tree. In any case, he confirms his words are “spirit and life”, meaning they are the product of the life-giving Spirit, which when rightly understood, generates life when the Spirit himself decides to turn on the light (John 3:8). The precise mechanism by which the Spirit opens up our eyes to truth (Luke 24:45) is unknown to us, but we CAN say that his methods, like the Spirit himself, are non-physical, invisible and beyond the reach of the five senses. However, a method of salvation based on the Eucharist is the polar opposite and therefore outside of God’s intentions. It is a tangible object that is well within reach of the senses. Therefore, since faith and truth are immaterial acts of the intellect which brings one to accepting the gospel, then eating His flesh must also be an immaterial act of the intellect, as they all produce the same result: eternal life (i.e., “believing” results in being raised up on the last day, as does “eating his flesh” (metaphorically!) result in being raised up on the last day. Jesus had only one thought in mind here and he expressed “belief” in two ways through the use of metaphor for the sake of stylistic variance. Recall that Lazarus slept, “but I go to awake him”. Actually, Laz was dead.

        To summarize: Their first error of seeking him only for a meal, was compounded by their second error of thinking in terms of making a meal out of Christ, as Catholics do today. However, “The words that I speak to you are spirit and are life” convey that His spirit-filled WORDS carry the potential of producing new and eternal life (6:68), which opposes the idea that eating his flesh carries a similar potential. When we ***digest*** his words in this manner, the flesh that he said would be given for the life of the world (6:51) cannot refer to any cannibalistic connotations (as Catholics so frequently assume) but rather, to the flesh he would give on Calvary’s cross!

        RZ: Again, Mo Jo, you will find zero holes in this paper.

        MJ: On the contrary, methinks you have a VERY unholy paper!

        Like

  2. RZ: John not mentioning the details of the Last Supper as the Synoptics do, is of no consequence.

    MJ: It is of GREAT consequence — and I believe I made my case VERY clear in my previous comments. You MUST have the Last Supper account in the gospel of John ***IF*** what Catholicism says is true about the Eucharist being necessary for salvation. John says that salvation may be found in his gospel alone, and so, since the RCC teaches that swallowing the wafer is mandatory for eternal life, the casual observer is left up a creek without a paddle. Without the “words of institution” made at the L.S. to tie in with Christ (allegedly) speaking literally in chapter 6, the reader is unable to find “the fullness of salvation” in John’s gospel alone! Non-catholics have no problem with the L.S. account being absent from John’s gospel.
    All you do is deny it and say it doesn’t matter. I’m afraid that is not good enough. Desperate for a way out, you try this trick:

    R. Zell response: Is it of no consequence. Why? Because we have the Synoptics where we can see the parallel account of the Last Supper. LOL. You are refuted here. You have not made your case except to twist and shield the truth. Those outside of the Body of Christ are not the Church. They are denominations, cults and sects unto themselves and not of Christ.

    Matthew: 26.23 And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. 26.24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. 26.25 Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.

    Mark: 14.20 And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish.

    John: 13.26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. 13.27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.

    MoJo, I suggest you don’t eat of your protestant or un-Protestant protestant unholy communion. Satan entered Judas when given unblessed and unconsecrated bread right from the very hand of Christ.

    Do you see the parallel passages in the other gospel writers?

    MJ: Nice try, but you lose. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re trying to convince us that because Jesus made a reference to Judas’ betrayal at the Last Supper after the Bread of Life discourse, all problems are solved.
    Ummm…no they aren’t. Your entire “two bread” thesis fails because you assume that the words “was to betray him”…were to officially occur at the Last Supper. That way, Judas can serve as an example of a rat fink, like all Protestants, who dropped Jesus like a hot potato in the midst of where Transubstantiation had supposedly occurred.
    NO. That we’re told from the other gospels that Judas abandoned ship during the distribution of bread is certainly not the “9/11” event to make your case. You forget that Judas had already betrayed Jesus BEFORE the Last Supper (Matt 26:14-16), and that the L.S. merely gave him the opportunity… (not motive) he was looking for in order to officially betray his Master. Hence, your Bread of Life strategy which hopes to find a connection with Judas being served another type of bread at the Last Supper due to his betrayal ***AT*** the Last Supper, is a weak link because Judas was ALREADY in a state of denial which had nothing to do with any issue involving Eucharistic bread at all.

    R. Zell Response: I am not trying to convince you. All I’m doing is connecting the dots just like I connected the dots of when “the Hour has come.” If you can’t see that the Bread of Life Discourse is linked to the Last Supper, then you are again blinded by your protestant paradigm. Bread of Life vs. the Bread of Spiritual Death. Both opposites. Take, eat, THIS IS MY BODY.” Here is ordinary bread given to Judas without discerning the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ and Satan enters Judas. Bread of Life = The Holy Eucharist. The Bread of Spiritual Death = unblessed, unconsecrated bread denying the very words of Christ as the Bread of Life Discourse.

    MJ says: MJ: Yeah, so what? Apparently it doesn’t occur to you that he JUST might be intimating that eating his flesh might profit nothing and you, sir, are barking up the wrong tree. In any case, he confirms his words are “spirit and life”, meaning they are the product of the life-giving Spirit, which when rightly understood, generates life when the Spirit himself decides to turn on the ……………

    R. Zell Response: Oh, I get it now, you are claiming that Jesus’ flesh profits nothing. The word that became flesh for our salvation. The product of the life-giving Spirit are the very words Jesus spoke at the Bread of Life Discourse and revealed at the Last Supper. The 2 types of Bread Jesus hands out is right out of scripture. The Bread of Life is given to the Apostles who believed and the other bread of spiritual death is given to the one who doesn’t believe those words “Take, eat, this is My Body.”

    MoJo Says: To summarize: Their first error of seeking him only for a meal, was compounded by their second error of thinking in terms of making a meal out of Christ, as Catholics do today. However, “The words that I speak to you are spirit and are life” convey that His spirit-filled WORDS carry the potential of producing new and eternal life (6:68), which opposes the idea that eating his flesh carries a similar potential. When we ***digest*** his words in this manner, the flesh that he said would be given for the life of the world (6:51) cannot refer to any cannibalistic connotations (as Catholics so frequently assume) but rather, to the flesh he would give on Calvary’s cross!

    R. Zell Response: His Spirit-filled WORDS do carry the potential of producing new and eternal life which when He has “Take, eat, THIS IS MY BODY” I believe exactly what he said at the Bread of Life Discourse and revealed to the Apostles at the Last Supper. The very fact that there are 2 TYPES OF BREAD given out by the very hand of Christ, also highlights the truth of what he said at both the Bread of Life Discourse and the Last Supper. Those who eat of the unholy, unconsecrated AND ORDINARY bread SYMBOLIC OF DENIAL OF THE SPIRIT FILLED WORDS JESUS SPOKE AT THE BREAD OF LIFE DISCOURSE and REVEALED AT THE LAST SUPPER, eat and drink judgment unto themselves.

    Do yourself a favor MoJo, do not partake of the unholy communion in any protestant denomination, cult or sect. That bread is the bread of spiritual death that -our- MY Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ reveals when he gives the 2nd type of bread to Judas and satan enters him.

    Eating that unholy bread served at protestant denominations leads to abiding in Satan and is the exact opposite of abiding in Christ. Please MoJo promise me you will not eat again of that satanic bread of denial.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s