35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; 39 and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven." 42 They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" 43 Jesus answered them, "Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. 46 Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." 59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper'na-um.
60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 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. 65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." 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.
THIS IS NOT MY BODY?
1)Malakye starts, charging the Church as using an unbeliever, Aristotle, as the basis for transubstantiation. Paul quoted unsaved poets (Acts 17:28). Nonetheless it is Jesus' own words that is the basis for that belief, reflected by the early church:
Justin Martyr: For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change (transmutation) of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus. Justin Martyr First Apology 66, ANF1, p. 185.
2)St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies: For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. ANF1, 4:18:5, p.487.
When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, .., how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him? Against Heresies, ANF1, 5:2:3, P. 528.
From the beginning, they were taught, based on Jesus' words, not Aristotles, the belief that food was transmuted (transformed) into Christ's flesh and blood, and leads to eternal life.
3)Malakye says (paragraph 2) Jesus didn't say It has become my body. Saying 'This is My Body' doesn't show change. Malakye's theology says that Jesus means "This symbolizes my Body". The problem is, he's diverting from Jesus' actual words. He said 'This is', (touto esti, Mt. 26:26), not 'symbolizes' or 'figure' of My Body. Jesus used the term 'figure' in John 16:25, not here, utterly absent in the institutional narratives. By using the term 'This is', Jesus identifies what it is.
God said 'Let there be light.' Be normally doesn't signify change but it can. Jesus says 'Be clean', Mark 1:41. Leprosy left. Didn't say 'he became' clean. Jesus healed others, giving different commands for curing people. The Eucharist is a unique transformation, He wouldn't use the same words when He cured people. John 6:39 Jesus said 'This is the will of the Father.' Every time the term 'This is' used, it means it. John used the word 'figure' in John 10:6, but not here. Nicholas Wiseman in a 19th century study notes that there are 40 words in Aramaic that mean 'signify' that Jesus could have used, Sungenis, Not By Bread Alone, page 145, footnote 122. He doesn't. Malakye shifts away from the exactness of Jesus' words to infer Jesus meant something He didn't say.
4)Christian Greek scholar St. John Chrysostom writes about Matthew 26:26-28:
And He Himself drank of it. For lest on hearing this, they should say, What then? do we drink blood, and eat flesh? and then be perplexed (for when He began to discourse concerning these things, even at the very sayings many were offended), therefore lest they should be troubled then likewise, He first did this Himself, leading them to the calm participation of the mysteries. Therefore, He Himself drank His own blood. Homily XXXII, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, NPNP10, 491.
He drank his own blood!! The words of Jesus, 'This is My Blood' are causative. Chrysostom understood Jesus in John 6 speaking of giving Jesus' Eucharistic true flesh and blood. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus spoke, read Greek, accepted the True presence, rejecting Malakye's theory (paragraph 2) saying otherwise.
5)Malakye says (Paragraph 4) 'It was not the eating of the Lamb that saved them, but the blood of the Lamb smeared on their doorposts'. Documented in my 1st rebuttal, paragraphs 8-9, if you didn't eat the flesh, you were cut off (Exodus 12:8, Numbers 9:13). The sacrifice wasn't completed by the death of the lamb, but by the eating of it. Jesus promised the new manna modeled after and superior to this Old Covenant manna, mandated to be eaten by followers, John 6:53. Paul calls believers to keep the Jesus' feast, his new Passover meal, 1 Cor. 5:7, 1 Cor. 10, 11.
SACRIFICE
6)Malakye says Hebrews mandates no more offering of sacrifice. On the contrary Hebrews says He is an eternal priest in the order of Melchizedek, who offered Bread and Wine in sacrifice. Malakye must answer how can He now be an eternal priest, (Psalm 110, Hebrews 5:5-8, 6:30-7:3, 7:17-25)?
Heb 8:1-3 3'For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.' Also Hebrews 5:1-3.
As eternal priest He must have something to offer, and He ministers in the sanctuary (verse 2). Melchizedek offered bread and wine, Jesus now offers His body and blood. In the Last Supper He had a Passover, a sacrificial meal.
Hebrews 9:20, borrows from the Exodus sacrificial meal, and Jesus' own words, 'This is the blood of the Covenant/Testament', Exodus 24:8, and the meal eaten (24:11). Jesus doesn't say, 'This symbolizes my Blood, and I will be sacrificed tomorrow'. The animal blood of the Exodus covenant, and Jesus' real blood. The blood reflects the true presence, and one must eat of this as Jesus tells them in the four institutional narratives, and ties eternal life to it in John 6:53, reflected here in Hebrews 9:20. This blood forgives sins (Mt. 26:28) now. Hebrews speaks to Jesus' institution, which makes sense of it all. That is how the once and for all sacrifice was made present for the disciples. He could do it because He is an eternal priest. Protestantism has no answer for how Jesus is an eternal priest right now, and is unable to account for Hebrews.
7)Anamnesis is a memorial sacrifice. Malakye downplays the sacrificial overtones, and ignores that it is linked to sacrifice because supposedly it only means remember. Throughout Scripture, there are eight other words that Jesus could have used that don't have sacrificial overtones. KJV:
Peter calling to remembrance anamimnesko (Strongs, #363) Mark 11:21
Remember mimnesko (Strongs, #3403) those that are in bonds Hebrews 13:3
Jesus, remember mnaomai (Strongs, #3415) me Luke 23:42
Remember mnemoneno (Strongs, #3421) Lots' wife Luke 17:32
And Peter remembered hupomimnesko (Strongs, #5279) Luke 22:61
things always in remembrance mnena (Strongs, #3418) 2 Pet 1:15
call to remembrancehupomnesis the unfeigned (Strongs, #5280) 2 Timothy 1:5
spoken of for a memorial mnemosunon (Strongs, #3432) of her. Mark 14:9 Sungenis, p. 123, footnote 105.
Each word has more examples, I invite all to fully read the passages, (word limitations here) but any of these words could have been used if Jesus wanted his followers only to 'recall'. Instead, Jesus says, and Luke and Paul specifically choose a word linked to sacrifice, understood to 'make present.'
8)Malakye writes, Paragraph 11: "Did the Exodus event transcend all time barriers and make itself "present" years later at the Last Supper?" NO.
The Haggedah says the following:
The Holy One, blessed is He, did not redeem only our ancestors, but also redeemed us along with them. As it is said: And He brought us out from thence, that he might bring us in, to give us the land which He swore unto our fathers. (Deut. 6:23).
The Mishna calls upon each participant in the Seder to make an intellectual leap across the millenia and thereby to share directly in the experience of their ancestors. Armstrong, Biblical Catholic Eucharistic Theology, p. 168, quotation from A Passover Seder Companion and Analytic Introduction to the Haggadah, Universe, 2004, 104.
It does transcend the time barrier.
9)Malakye argues (paragraph 8) that the Eucharist violates Jesus' promise that He will go away, in John 16. Here Jesus is only speaking about after his ascension into heaven, his physical body will remain in heaven at the right hand of the Father. That has to do with His Body is in heaven and will stay there until He comes again as declared by the angel (Acts 1:11). His human, resurrected body, is still in heaven. His resurrected Body and Blood given in the form of bread and wine does nothing to violate the promise of John 16. Also, the idea that God is omniscient so He can't be present in the Eucharist doesn't hold. He was present in the burning bush, Exodus 3, also, in the cloud that traveled with the Israelites Exodus 40:34, didn't violate His omniscience.
IS/POURED OUT
10)Malakye asserts it is impossible to make Jesus present, pointing forward to his sacrifice. In order for Malakye's theology to be true, Jesus must say 'This symbolizes my Body, and represents the sacrifice that I will do tomorrow'. Instead, Jesus says Matthew 26:28:
This is my blood of the covenant/testament, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
This is My Blood. He identifies it as his own blood. But he says it Is, in other words, right now. Not something only in the future. Exodus 24:8 "And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people, and said Behold the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you."
11)What about the term 'poured out?'
You don't pour out blood, when you drink it. Why does he say 'poured out.' Leviticus 4:7, 18. Verse 18:
"And the priest shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of fragrant incense before the LORD which is in the tent of meeting, and the rest of the blood of the bull he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering tells us why and the rest of the blood of the bull he shall pour out."
This is really blood, so when Jesus says this he is pouring out himself, this food is blood, which He is telling them to drink. The bull's blood was 'poured out' in sacrifice. Jesus' blood 'is' poured out in sacrifice, right then, right now. Not 'symbolizes that in the future it will be'. So, this is not some Catholic penchant, this is a reading of Jesus' words in the words of institution. Jesus himself makes blood present. Since it is offered in many places, many times, it is a fulfillment of the Hebrews passages, as well as Malachi 1:11-12:
12)1:11: For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. 12:But you profane it when you say that the LORD's table is polluted, and the food for it may be despised.
Among nations, this is a sacrifice, the only pure offering is Jesus' death. This offering, of his Body and Blood is a one-time pure offering, but offered everywhere and every time. Notice the Lord's Table (pointing to the Eucharist). The Church unanimously saw the Malachi sacrifice (Didache 14, 70 AD, Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 41, 155AD, Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:17:5, 175 AD), fulfilled in the Eucharist.
Malakye argues against Sungenis, who says 'Exact Replica' (paragraph 12). I do not use that terminology, is not in the Catechism, and will not defend it, Rule #3.
13)Another unbloody sacrifice with bread:
Leviticus 24:7-9: And you shall put pure frankincense with each row, that it may go with the bread as a memorial portion to be offered by fire to the LORD. 8:Every sabbath day Aaron shall set it in order before the LORD continually on behalf of the people of Israel as a covenant forever. 9:And it shall be for Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat it in a holy place, since it is for him a most holy portion out of the offerings by fire to the LORD, a perpetual due."
Unbloody sacrifice, holy bread to be eaten, in Hebrew the bread is the face of God. In Matthew 12:3-8, Jesus said the disciples did not violate the law by eating this bread. He is greater than the temple, 12:6. He will consecrate the disciples themselves to offer his Body and Blood in the form of bread and wine. Jesus is termed an eternal priest according to the order of Melchizedek (Opening Statement, Hebrews, paragraph 25-28), (Genesis 14:14-18) who must have something to offer (Heb 5:1-10, 8:1-6). Only his Sacrifice redeems, instituting it with his Body and Blood (Mt. 26;26-28, Mk. 14:S22-24:, Luke 22:19-20, 1 Cor. 11:23-29), not killed again, and thus unbloody.
14)Malakye claims I and the Catechism contradicts itself (paragraph 13), when I say that I am partaking of a glorified Christ, because we say that we are also partaking of the crucified Christ. I had said Jesus was not saying He was coming in the human form before them. Despite the repeated Malakye references to cannibalism, we are not eating a human body in the form before them. In the form of bread and wine, a glorified, risen Christ, no arms/toes. Hebrews says Jesus now ministers in the sanctuary 8:1-2, now offering a sacrifice. But the only sacrifice that saves is what He offered himself on the cross. Two refrains used during the Mass helps explain it, Paul's writing, 1 Cor. 11:26:
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
Another refrain:
Christ has come, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
15)I'll look at verse 27 later. But Paul says every time one partakes, one proclaims the Lord's death. This will be celebrated until he comes in full glory. He is a resurrected Christ, who offers the once and for all sacrifice made present now, exactly after saying it is his Body and is his Blood (verses 24-25). Not symbolizes, in the future (when Jesus gave the institution before his death), or 'this is a figure of what He did in the past', when offered after his Death and Resurrection (Luke 24). It is made present. The words of institution and Paul's analysis explain it.
JOHN 6
16)Malakye disputes that Jesus is going from the metaphorical to literal. He argues that he is staying metaphorical because he is metaphorical in chapter 7. He says, paragraph 14 "I utterly disavow the idea of Jesus making a "transition" in the midst of his failing Algebra students (unbelievers)".
He ignores the context. Jesus told unbelievers huge truths, just because many didn't accept his teaching didn't mean He was in many cases not literal. In John 5:24-29, to unbelievers, He said that all who come to believe in him, and do good, will attain to the resurrection of life. In John 8, he 'graduates' and tells unbelievers that before Abraham was, 'I am'. He goes from metaphorical to literal teaching. The fact that He taught in figures in John 7 for example, did not mean that He was talking figuratively when he said that before Abraham was, 'I am' in John 8. He meant He is God, not a figure, symbolizing God. In John 10, Jesus uses the term 'door', and 'shepherd', 'thief' and 'wolf' in John 10:1-16. In this very same chapter, he speaks unfiguratively when he says in John 10:30 'I and the Father are one'. The thing is in John 10:6, John recounts this: 'This figure Jesus used with them.' John himself recounts that Jesus used figures. Not in John 6. In John 10 nobody thought Jesus was an actual door, or Shepherd, or there were actual thieves or robbers (the devil). He can go from metaphorical to literal when discoursing. Disciples accepted this teaching, and the opponent unbelievers never said 'How can you be a shepherd.'
17)In John 6:48-59, Malakye didn't address the fact that this passage speaks literally. Jesus specifically gave in vs. 48 the comparison to the miraculous manna which came from heaven (Exodus 16:4) that people were fed. The same in verse 58. The comparison of the new manna, is to the supernatural food of manna in Exodus. Then in verse 51, Malakye argues that He is only talking about going to the cross. That is fine, but shows He is not speaking of metaphor. About going to his death, He is talking reality, not metaphor, which destroys his own argument. He ignores the fact that right after comparing his new manna, superior to the miraculous manna of exodus, Jesus says one must eat this bread, which is his Flesh, not limiting only to his death. Hmm, miraculous manna in the inferior Old Covenant, and all we get are symbols in the New Covenant? Impossible.
When I said He kicks it up a notch is because He is challenged and He reiterates, using language more explicit than verse 51. He says one must eat flesh and drink blood, John 6:53, again recounting flesh of the Passover meal that they must eat (Exodus 12:8), (First rebuttal, paragraphs 8-9) or else one will not inherit eternal life, exactly as those who didn't partake of the Passover food, were cut off (Numbers 9:13). If one does not eat of that food, one is deprived of eternal life, John 6:53. It gives grace and forgives sins (Mt. 26:28). Malakye then floats metaphorical usage of eating and drinking, downplaying the fact that the only way that this usage of 'eating flesh' always and everywhere is negative, not positive. Actually, that argument is a diversion, since Jesus didn't tell us in this situation to drink water in John 6. John explained Jesus' metaphorical usage in John 7. In John 6, the context again is of a much better than miraculous manna, which was literally real.
18)Then Malakye floats a theory, found from others trying to explain away the fact that trogo is always used literally, somehow it must be used metaphorically in John 6 (paragraph 21). Well, it came to mean like the normal term eat, esthio. And he argues we don't 'crunch' the Eucharist so why do you do highlight the term that Catholics don't do anyway. Actually, even the word esthio, normally means literal eating any way. We know Jesus meant for them to eat his flesh, even if it was esthio. However, the point is that when Jesus talked about eating in John 6:48, it actually was the word phago, very rarely used metaphorically, but when Jesus used the termtrogo, it is a term that at that time was always used literally. The term bespeaks of literalness even if we don't technically trogo his Body. I notice that Malakye, and the Goppelt Theological Dictionary apparently gave no examples of at that time trogo, used metaphorically. Reality doesn't match the rhetoric.
19)Remember Jesus was challenged and He responded this way, John 6:53-54:
"53Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
The Jews contest and how does he respond? He reiterates it stronger. Unlike in John 10 where John specifically uses the term 'figure' in reference to Jesus' language, in John 6, John uses a Greek term which only was used at that time literally. Jesus is in a Passover setting providing bread and fish materially and miraculously. The old physical manna pales into comparison to this new manna, and this new manna will be flesh which one must eat, but comparable to manna (accidents). By using a term that John translates as trogo, which has only been used literally. Then, KJV, verse 55, For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. The comparison to the real manna of the Old Covenant speaks to literalness.
LEVITICUS
20)Malakye refers to the Levitical prohibition against eating a live sacrifice of blood (paragraph 22). Though it is blood, it is an unbloody sacrifice as Jesus is not killed again. Malakye puts himself in a catch 22. If it is wrong and sinful because we are told to eat blood, and that violates Leviticus 17, then it is wrong and sinful to symbolically eat blood. Jesus says if one looks at a woman with lust (Matthew 5:28), it is sinful, just as actually committing the act of adultery. If Jesus is commanding sin, He can't be our Savior. He can't use it against Catholics without using it against himself. If He can't, the objection falls.
Jesus himself said all foods are clean, Mark 7:19. What does Leviticus 17:11 condemn and why?
11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.12 No person among you shall eat blood.
This is animal blood that is referred to here. Compare this to John 6:53: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you"
Animal blood could not be eaten, it does not ultimately fulfill the promise of Leviticus, but Jesus' nonanimal blood fulfills it in a way that the animal blood couldn't. Jesus' blood can and ultimately must be eaten. Jesus is the atoner. You don't eat, you are cut off. The John 6 Eucharist interpretation exactly fits with Leviticus 17:11.
TESTAMENT/COVENANT
21)Malakye refers to Hebrews 9:16-17, which says a Testament is in force only after one dies, so the Eucharist gives no benefit before Christ dies. He misses the argument in Hebrews 9. Hebrews 9:1-14 argues that Christ's sacrifice was superior to the old one. Hebrews compares to the first testament/covenant. One only gets the benefit after the death. Hebrews looks at the first testament, which is the death of the animals which inaugurated the first covenant/testament, Exodus 24. One only got forgiveness after the death/killing of the animals. Then it says 'Hence' (verse 18) and points exactly to the superior covenant/testament: "This is the blood of the covenant"(20). The actual words of Jesus are applied to the Exodus initiation of covenant/testament, here. Looking back, this new sacrifice is superior to the one spoken of in verse 17. Verse 23:
Thus, it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
22)This new sacrifice, is superior to the old sacrifice, which was bound by time. This new better sacrifice(s), not so. Malakye will admit in general at least the sacrifice of the cross applies to people who were around before Jesus died and lived. All the Old Testament heroes of Hebrews 11, did get the benefits of Christ's death on the cross. Hebrews specifically points to Jesus' own words in 9:20, which specifically talks about the covenantal/testamental meal.
These better sacrifices, plural, the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11, reflects the once and for all sacrifice pointed to in 9:27. This better sacrifice, offered by the Eternal Priest Jesus, is that this meal that he says in Hebrews 9:20, is real Blood, even if it is the form of bread and wine. That is how Jesus can say Matthew 26:28for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Not, symbolizes in the future, but right now, is the blood of the covenant, for the forgiveness of sins of the disciples. This superior sacrifice, says is my blood, right now, even if it pointed to the future.
EAT AND/OR DRINK
23)Malakye quotes 1 Cor. 11:27 (paragraph 23) and apparently believes I am violating debate rule 10 because I didn't quote the KJV, but the RSVCE. The rule says we can quote either of them. The debate is, is this a symbol, or real? Does the KJV translation help him on the specific question under debate?:
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
Either translation eliminates his assertion that it is a symbol. Paul reiterates that when one partakes of the elements, whether it is and or/Or, one is taking the Body and Blood of the Lord. If one unworthily takes it, one is guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ. The Baptist translation should be guilty of the symbol/figure of His Body and Blood, whether and, or/or. It is really his Body and Blood, and the diversion shows the weakness of the argument. If the Eucharist was just a symbol, there is no way possible that one can be guilty of the Body and Blood. This establishes the reality of his body and blood. You bring judgment/damnation upon yourself by not recognizing that reality, verse 29.
24)Communion is given daily in Acts 2:42-46. We know for sure, where there is worship, a part of that worship is the breaking of bread (Acts 20:7), the element is wine. It is interesting of the outrage on not partaking of the drink, when the Baptist Church allows grape juice instead of wine for its drink, takes Communion three or four times a year, instead of in every worship, as the Scripture notes, devalues it to a symbol, when Scripture calls what the Church of Christ offers His Body and Blood? Besides that, every translation, even the new KJV, RSV Protestant version, Dhouay Rheims, NASB, NIV, all say if one eats the bread OR drinks the cup it is the body and blood. One receives both in either form.
Origen, "when you have received THE BODY OF THE LORD, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish." Homilies on Exodus 13:3, Jurgens The Faith of the Early Fathers vol. 1 490, pp. 205-206.
Notice the reverence for the Body. Talking about the Body here, but eventually it was found more likely that which is in the form of wine is more likely to spill.
MY FLESH IS OF AVAIL
25)Malakye claims "Jesus did correct the disciples, repudiating their cannibalistic conclusions, effectively saying that to eat his actual flesh would "profit them nothing"(paragraph 19)
Cannibalism is eating a dead body with flesh and bones. Jesus is not dead. Jesus didn't say eating 'my flesh' does nothing. A resurrected Jesus offers the once and for all sacrifice, He said repeatedly one must eat 'My Flesh', the new manna, is My flesh. John 6 says:
6:62Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
26)The Church teaches that the Spirit makes the bread and wine become the Body and Blood. Brant Pitre finds this Ezekiel 37:1-14 parallel to John 6:
6And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you----, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the LORD." 8:And as I looked, there were sinews on them, and flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them; but there was no breath in them. 9:Then he said to me, "Prophesy to the breath, prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, Thus says the Lord GOD: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live." 14: And I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live.
27)The flesh is powerless without the Spirit. However, the Spirit is what makes Jesus' parallel exactly fit. Pitre notes:
Jesus' teaching about "my flesh" refers to the flesh of the heavenly Son of Man, animated by the spirit in his resurrection and exaltation into the heavenly kingdom (Daniel 7:13-14), while his teaching about "the flesh" refers to earthly flesh unanimated by the eschatological spirit (Ezekiel 37:1-14). Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper, p. 219.
Just as Jesus declares that it is the spirit that gives life, so too in Ezekiel it is "the spirit" that makes the dead "live" in the bodily resurrection (Ezekiel 37:1-6). And just as Jesus describes his words as "spirit" and "life" so too five times Ezekiel speaks of the "spirit" giving the dead the power to "live" (Ezekiel 37:5, 6, 9, 10, 13). Pitre, p. 218.
Jesus, and the Ezekiel passage shows how HIS Flesh is of avail. My flesh is meat indeed by the Spirit makes alive bread and wine, to become the risen Lord, to make the man who partakes of it, new.
28)Malakye argues via verse 64 that only unbelievers left Jesus. John records:
Verse 66: "many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him"
Disciples, believers, not unbelievers, were the ones who left him after this clarification. If his clarification and explanation meant not to eat his flesh and blood but only believe, why did these disciples not leave before, and after John 6, before the Last Supper? John 3:36, 4:9-54, 5:24-29, 40-47, 7:38-39, 8:24-32, 51-58, John 9:35-38, 10:25-42, 11:25-27, 12:44-48. John notes, and Jesus repeatedly emphasized the necessity of believing in him, absolutely nowhere else did disciples/believers leave him after this teaching. Yes, unbelievers rejected him, but disciples didn't leave in any of those situations, but only when Jesus said about the necessity of eating his flesh and blood. The only possibility is that Jesus' explanation on the reality of his flesh and blood, even transformed by Spirit, is still rejected by these disciples.
Word total: 5,000.