The Body and Blood of Christ

[ttg]

There are many instances where Jesus spoke in metaphors and parables. And there is one instance where made it clear he was not speaking metaphorically.

The doctrine of the Eucharist is explicit in the Bible. It left no doubt that this is not metaphor.

From the Bible:



Matt. 16:12 - in this verse, Jesus explains His metaphorical use of the term "bread." In John 6, He eliminates any metaphorical possibilities.

John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo†is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago†might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo†when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?†(John 6:52). John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.



John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.



John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.



John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

 

[ttg]

Continued

John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn't Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn't Jesus say, "Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!"? Because they understood correctly.

Mark 4:34 - Jesus always explained to His disciples the real meanings of His teachings. He never would have let them go away with a false impression, most especially in regard to a question about eternal salvation.

John 6:37 - Jesus says He would not drive those away from Him. They understood Him correctly but would not believe.

John 3:5,11; Matt. 16:11-12 - here are some examples of Jesus correcting wrong impressions of His teaching. In the Eucharistic discourse, Jesus does not correct the scandalized disciples.

John 6:64,70 - Jesus ties the disbelief in the Real Presence of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist to Judas' betrayal. Those who don't believe in this miracle betray Him.

John 10:7 - Protestants point out that Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, "I am the door." But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically.

John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, "I am the vine." Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine. In John 6, Jesus' disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18 – Jesus says He will not drink of the “fruit of the vine†until He drinks it new in the kingdom. Some Protestants try to use this verse (because Jesus said “fruit of the vineâ€Â) to prove the wine cannot be His blood. But the Greek word for fruit is “genneema†which literally means “that which is generated from the vine.†In John 15:1,5 Jesus says “I am the vine.†So “fruit of the vine†can also mean Jesus’ blood. In 1 Cor. 11:26-27, Paul also used “bread†and “the body of the Lord†interchangeably in the same sentence. Also, see Matt. 3:7;12:34;23:33 for examples were “genneema†means “birth†or “generation.â€Â

Luke 1:37 - with God, nothing is impossible. If we can believe in the incredible reality of the Incarnation, we can certainly believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. God coming to us in elements He created is an extension of the awesome mystery of the Incarnation.

Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Touto estin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood.

1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - "touto mou estin to soma." The statement is "this is really" my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying "this represents (not is) my body and blood." However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for "represent," but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for "estin" which means "is."

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, "the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ's body and blood?" Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul's questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word "koinonia" describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood. 1 Cor. 10:18 - in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.

 

[Heidi]

Re: Continued

John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn't Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn't Jesus say, "Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!"? Because they understood correctly.

Mark 4:34 - Jesus always explained to His disciples the real meanings of His teachings. He never would have let them go away with a false impression, most especially in regard to a question about eternal salvation.

John 6:37 - Jesus says He would not drive those away from Him. They understood Him correctly but would not believe.

John 3:5,11; Matt. 16:11-12 - here are some examples of Jesus correcting wrong impressions of His teaching. In the Eucharistic discourse, Jesus does not correct the scandalized disciples.

John 6:64,70 - Jesus ties the disbelief in the Real Presence of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist to Judas' betrayal. Those who don't believe in this miracle betray Him.

John 10:7 - Protestants point out that Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, "I am the door." But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically.

John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, "I am the vine." Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine. In John 6, Jesus' disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18 – Jesus says He will not drink of the “fruit of the vine†until He drinks it new in the kingdom. Some Protestants try to use this verse (because Jesus said “fruit of the vineâ€Â) to prove the wine cannot be His blood. But the Greek word for fruit is “genneema†which literally means “that which is generated from the vine.†In John 15:1,5 Jesus says “I am the vine.†So “fruit of the vine†can also mean Jesus’ blood. In 1 Cor. 11:26-27, Paul also used “bread†and “the body of the Lord†interchangeably in the same sentence. Also, see Matt. 3:7;12:34;23:33 for examples were “genneema†means “birth†or “generation.â€Â

Luke 1:37 - with God, nothing is impossible. If we can believe in the incredible reality of the Incarnation, we can certainly believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. God coming to us in elements He created is an extension of the awesome mystery of the Incarnation.

Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Touto estin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood.

1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - "touto mou estin to soma." The statement is "this is really" my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying "this represents (not is) my body and blood." However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for "represent," but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for "estin" which means "is."

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, "the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ's body and blood?" Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul's questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word "koinonia" describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood. 1 Cor. 10:18 - in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.

Sorry, but in that same passage, Jesus said in John 6:63, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing." So you are in error. And the disciples who left Jesus were incorrect which is preciely why they abandoned him. Jesus was therefore talking about the Holy Spirit when he tells us we have to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Jesus also says; "I am the gate." Now all sane people know that Jesus wasn't being literal here because he walked and talked. And neither then is he being literal when he claims he is store bought bread and store bought wine because he walked and talked. So again, the catholic church doesn't know that Jesus was not inanimate objects, but alive and well.

 

[fatboyluis]

wow u have just overlooked all the scripture passages that have been pointed out to prove that only the Catholic church ministers the Body and Blood of Christ

arent u in the slightest bothered that u r not recieveing the Body and Blood of Christ, do u now believe that He would give us His own flesh and Blood? do u think its not possible? that Jesus can be truly present Body Blood Soul and Divinity under the form of bread and wine,
can u explain the so many Eucharistic miracles that have occured throughout the ages?

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

http://biblia.com/jesusart/eucharistic.htm

http://hometown.aol.com/bjw1106/euchmir.htm

they r just a few links to some of the documented and approved miracles

God Bless
please take the time to read those websites

 

[notapseudonym]

Heidi says "Jesus was therefore talking about the Holy Spirit when he tells us we have to eat his flesh and drink his blood." Are Jesus and the Holy Spirit one and the same? Yes they are both the same God, but what happened to the three persons?

I also ask How could it be the Holy Spirit's flesh or blood that we are told to eat and drink? The Holy Spirit is just that, a spiritual being. No body there. Jesus is a spiritual being, but He humbled Himself to be a man, He took on human flesh and blood, not the Holy Spirit.

If I am in error please correct me, if I am not please answer the objections.

 

[fatboyluis]

im quite surprised how this topic didnt go as much as all the others do,

im also quite interested to see what ppl believe and y they dont mind not receiving the Body and Blood of Christ,

God Bless

 

[fatboyluis]

Oh come on, only the Catholic Church and the eastern orthadox churches claim to minister the real Body and Blood of Christ,

i'm trully shocked how no one has responded to this thread

weird?

God Bless

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

Heidi says "Jesus was therefore talking about the Holy Spirit when he tells us we have to eat his flesh and drink his blood." Are Jesus and the Holy Spirit one and the same? Yes they are both the same God, but what happened to the three persons?

I also ask How could it be the Holy Spirit's flesh or blood that we are told to eat and drink? The Holy Spirit is just that, a spiritual being. No body there. Jesus is a spiritual being, but He humbled Himself to be a man, He took on human flesh and blood, not the Holy Spirit.

If I am in error please correct me, if I am not please answer the objections.

Im not sure I understand what you are saying or who its directed to...

And Heidi, you say you follow the Bible and then ignore ALL the evidence that points to a point of view you dont hold to. How do you sleep at night?

And fatboy... how can they refute such a clear explanation of the truth?

I think we should start discussing Eucharistic miracles! I'll start!

Okay, so every year on the feast of Corpus Christi, there is a chalice filled with dried blood that reliquifies every feast of Corpus Christi. Scientists have studied the phenomena and have determined that the reliquifying is not a trick of the Church. I believe the consecreted wine and bread turned into literal flesh and blood (they were before, but they took on the form of real flesh and real blood). Anyone got any others?

This is fun! Thanks ttg! You made my day!

 

[thessalonian]

Sorry, but in that same passage, Jesus said in John 6:63, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing."

What flesh counts for nothing? Christ's? You are kidding of course, in a few passages before Jesus says "the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world". Now if flesh counted for nothing then how could he offer it for our lives. Nonsense.

So you are in error. And the disciples who left Jesus were incorrect which is preciely why they abandoned him. Jesus was therefore talking about the Holy Spirit when he tells us we have to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

That's a stretch. Since when is Jesus flesh a metaphore fore the Holy Spirit? In the verse you site he is saying that the bread and wine are food for OUR SOULS. That OUR FLESH doesn't profit. That is the only way that the sentence can make any sense.

Jesus also says; "I am the gate." Now all sane people know that Jesus wasn't being literal here because he walked and talked.

"I am the gate" is the language of metaphore. Even "I am the bread of life" is the language of metaphore. But where did he ever say "this gate is me" or "this vine is me". That is not the languge of mataphore but the language of reality and he even says "MY FLESH IS TRUE FOOD, and MY BLOOD IS TRUE DRINK". Not the langauge of metaphore. Why do you refuse to believe the Bible Heidi. Sad.

And neither then is he being literal when he claims he is store bought bread and store bought wine because he walked and talked. So again, the catholic church doesn't know that Jesus was not inanimate objects, but alive and well.

Was God in the burning bush? Was he in the Ark of the Covenant? Do you claim there is somewhere where God is not. That is not what Omnipresent means. But then your in to lesser God theories so I suppose you might.

Blessings

 

[Novum]

Okay, so every year on the feast of Corpus Christi, there is a chalice filled with dried blood that reliquifies every feast of Corpus Christi. Scientists have studied the phenomena and have determined that the reliquifying is not a trick of the Church.

Where is this chalice? What "scientists" have studied it? What papers did they write about it? Where are these papers? What reason did they give for not calling it a trick of the Church? Why isn't this chalice all over CNN, Fox News, the New York Times...?

You realize, of course, that if this chalice story were even remotely true, it would revolutionize the world. Nobel Prizes would be given, intense studies would begin. New scientific theories would be constructed. In short, it would be a Very. Big. Deal. Every previous 'miracle chalice' or 'miracle weeiping Mary' has been, as you pointed out yourself, a trick of the church - so why should this one be any different?

Thanks, but I'll remain skeptical until I hear more about it.

 

[thessalonian]

Okay, so every year on the feast of Corpus Christi, there is a chalice filled with dried blood that reliquifies every feast of Corpus Christi. Scientists have studied the phenomena and have determined that the reliquifying is not a trick of the Church.

Where is this chalice? What "scientists" have studied it? What papers did they write about it? Where are these papers? What reason did they give for not calling it a trick of the Church? Why isn't this chalice all over CNN, Fox News, the New York Times...?

You realize, of course, that if this chalice story were even remotely true, it would revolutionize the world. Nobel Prizes would be given, intense studies would begin. New scientific theories would be constructed. In short, it would be a Very. Big. Deal. Every previous 'miracle chalice' or 'miracle weeiping Mary' has beem, as you pointed out yourself, a trick of the church - so why should this one be any different?

Thanks, but I'll remain skeptical until I hear more about it.

The media is not really to interested. There are many such miracles and much scientific study has been done on them. Here is a site that talks about many of them:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

This one is perhaps the most noted:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst ... ciano.html

This is a doctors report on the miracle:

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=70440

It is a host from the 8th century that turned to human flesh and is still human flesh today. I understand it has the characteristics of the heart. I also believe there was a blood test done on it at one time and the blood type was AB. It matched the blood type of the shroud of Turin. I don't blame you for your skepticism but there is much documenation on these and most are available for public viewing. Go check one out sometime.

I've also heard of the chalice BWG mentions. Not sure where it is though.

BLessings

 

[Novum]

The media is not really to interested. There are many such miracles and much scientific study has been done on them.

If these miracles were what they claimed to be, there would be intense media interest and there would be intense scientific interest. Anything that goes against our worldview so blatantly couldn't help but receive vast attention.

Here is a site that talks about many of them:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

This one is perhaps the most noted:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst ... ciano.html

This is a site full of anecdotes with seemingly no mention of science or scientific studies.

This is a doctors report on the miracle:

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=70440

A little better, but still just an anecdote. It does claim that the WHO (World Health Organization) commissioned a very large study in 1973 that had inconclusive results.

I googled "Edoardo Linoli", the "physician" mentioned in that anecdote - there's only 271 results for a man making such an earthshaking claim. Most of these results are just reprints of the media report that announced the claim in the first place.

Next, I thought I'd check the WHO website itself to read about the study they supposedly commissioned. On their website...

...I searched for "edoardo linoli". Zero results.

Hmm, that's odd.

...I searched for "eucharistic miracle". Zero results.

Hmm, that's also odd.

...I searched for "rome eucharist". Zero results.

...I searched for plain old "eucharist". Zero results.

...and at this point, I gave up. It seems clear to me that this is all, at best, a media fabrication. It has certainly received no notable scientific attention.

 

[thessalonian]

You give up too easily and your skepticism does not seem to be accompanied by a real and sincere desire to get to the bottom of these events. It went in to the waste of time bucket.

Blessings

 

[Novum]

You give up too easily and your skepticism does not seem to be accompanied by a real and sincere desire to get to the bottom of these events. It went in to the waste of time bucket.

Ad hominems are not necessary.

Instead of claiming that I give up too easily, perhaps you could offer some advice or relevant links. For example:

1. If no major media outlet carried any information about this event, where do you suggest I go to read more information?

2. I thought that the official WHO website would have been the best place to go in order to read about a study the WHO supposedly commissioned. My research would appear to indicate that no such study ever took place.

Perhaps you could recommend a better site (better than the official WHO website, that is) for information about WHO-related activities?

 

[thessalonian]

Novum,

I apologize. Looking at it again my post was a bit snippy. I am not really in to convincing people of Eucharistic miracles. They should not be a basis of faith. They encourage mine and what checking I have done supports their authenticity. But to convince you when you don't believe in the Eucharist in the first place I don't think is a good way to go. If your in Italy sometime I advise that you check one out.

 

[Heidi]

Novum,

I apologize. Looking at it again my post was a bit snippy. I am not really in to convincing people of Eucharistic miracles. They should not be a basis of faith. They encourage mine and what checking I have done supports their authenticity. But to convince you when you don't believe in the Eucharist in the first place I don't think is a good way to go. If your in Italy sometime I advise that you check one out.

So do you believe that the bread and wine at communuion are the actual body and blood of Christ? If so, do you also believe that when Jesus said; "I am the gate" that he is actually made of wood, iron, or metal? :o If not, then why do you think Jesus is store-bought bread and wine? :o

 

[Novum]

Novum,

I apologize. Looking at it again my post was a bit snippy. I am not really in to convincing people of Eucharistic miracles. They should not be a basis of faith. They encourage mine and what checking I have done supports their authenticity. But to convince you when you don't believe in the Eucharist in the first place I don't think is a good way to go. If your in Italy sometime I advise that you check one out.

No problem. Perhaps I will.

 

[thessalonian]

Novum,

I apologize. Looking at it again my post was a bit snippy. I am not really in to convincing people of Eucharistic miracles. They should not be a basis of faith. They encourage mine and what checking I have done supports their authenticity. But to convince you when you don't believe in the Eucharist in the first place I don't think is a good way to go. If your in Italy sometime I advise that you check one out.

So do you believe that the bread and wine at communuion are the actual body and blood of Christ? If so, do you also believe that when Jesus said; "I am the gate" that he is actually made of wood, iron, or metal? :o If not, then why do you think Jesus is store-bought bread and wine? :o

Heidi, why don't you read my post above to you. I don't want to answer you again. Jesus is sacramentally (not to be confused with physically) present when the bread and wine are transubstantiated. It is no longer bread and wine but Christ. I believe what the Bible says. Why don't you? I answered te "I am the gate" please read it.

 

[Heidi]

Novum,

I apologize. Looking at it again my post was a bit snippy. I am not really in to convincing people of Eucharistic miracles. They should not be a basis of faith. They encourage mine and what checking I have done supports their authenticity. But to convince you when you don't believe in the Eucharist in the first place I don't think is a good way to go. If your in Italy sometime I advise that you check one out.

So do you believe that the bread and wine at communuion are the actual body and blood of Christ? If so, do you also believe that when Jesus said; "I am the gate" that he is actually made of wood, iron, or metal? :o If not, then why do you think Jesus is store-bought bread and wine? :o

Heidi, why don't you read my post above to you. I don't want to answer you again. Jesus is sacramentally (not to be confused with physically) present when the bread and wine are transubstantiated. It is no longer bread and wine but Christ. I believe what the Bible says. Why don't you? I answered te "I am the gate" please read it.

The catholics teach the that bread and wine are themselves the blood and body of Christ. But the non-catholics teach that they only represent the body and blood of Christ which is true because Jesus is not store-bought bread and wine. So which one do you believe?

And what part of the bible do you think I don't believe? :o Or is this just another empty attack again?

 

[thessalonian]

Novum,

I apologize. Looking at it again my post was a bit snippy. I am not really in to convincing people of Eucharistic miracles. They should not be a basis of faith. They encourage mine and what checking I have done supports their authenticity. But to convince you when you don't believe in the Eucharist in the first place I don't think is a good way to go. If your in Italy sometime I advise that you check one out.

So do you believe that the bread and wine at communuion are the actual body and blood of Christ? If so, do you also believe that when Jesus said; "I am the gate" that he is actually made of wood, iron, or metal? :o If not, then why do you think Jesus is store-bought bread and wine? :o

Heidi, why don't you read my post above to you. I don't want to answer you again. Jesus is sacramentally (not to be confused with physically) present when the bread and wine are transubstantiated. It is no longer bread and wine but Christ. I believe what the Bible says. Why don't you? I answered te "I am the gate" please read it.

The catholics teach the that bread and wine are themselves the blood and body of Christ. But the non-catholics teach that they only represent the body and blood of Christ which is true because Jesus is not store-bought bread and wine. So which one do you believe?

And what part of the bible do you think I don't believe? :o Or is this just another empty attack again?

We don't consecrate wonder bread deary. No it is not bread. It is Christ. What part of "My flesh is true food, my blood is true dring" "this is my body, this is my blood" don't you understand. That is not the language of metaphore. The hebrew/greek is quite literal. Is this something that is not possible for God? Was he in the burning bush or was he not? Did he part the red sea? Did he feed 5000 with a few loaves and fish? Did a virgin concieve by the power of God? Did a man (not just Christ) walk on water, can an axe float. Why don't you believe his plain words Heidi. No empty attack here.