As we have shown in the last issue, Rome does not follow the pattern of the last supper as set down by Jesus Christ Himself. We showed that Jesus never took the bread and held it up and said “This is my body, blood, soul and divinity”. Jesus always separated the two elements saying the bread was “his flesh” and the cup was “his blood”. When the apostles partook of that last supper, they were given the bread and told “this is flesh” and they did eat. Then they were given the cup to drink. Jesus said “drink, this is my blood”. The apostles were NEVER given the bread to eat with the blood still in it!!! Rome is a LIAR. 1Corinthians 10:16 clearly shows:

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?”

Again, Paul shows us that the bread is not to be eaten with the blood, but rather separate from it.

We also showed that the blood poured out on Calvary and did not re-enter the body of Jesus. Therefore, Rome is eating a live sacrifice with the blood still in it, instead of the scriptural “shed blood”, a pre-crucified Christ.

When Rome polluted and twisted the scriptures, she ran into a bit of a problem. What would happen to “Jesus” after they ate Him? To eat means “to assimilate, to destroy”. Since they could not possibly “destroy” Jesus, they continued their lie by saying that as soon as the host dissolved, it ceased to be “Jesus”. Note: it took a priest to say an incantation over a piece of bread to change it into “God”, but only some body acids to change it back into bread. By their own doctrine, they really never ate “Jesus”. All they digested and fed on was bread. Jesus enters “whole and entire” and leaves “whole and entire”. How then did they “eat Jesus”? They did not!

In Matthew 15:2, the Pharisees accused the apostles of not washing their hands before they ate “bread”. Jesus answered:

“But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man...Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without under-standing? Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornica-tions, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man.” (Matt.15:9-20)

It’s very clear here that “whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught”. Jesus cannot go against His own doctrine! If the communion host entered into the belly, then it inevitably would be “cast out into the draught”. Is this what Rome calls “respectful” to God? Can you see why they had to come up with another man-made doctrine? But in doing so, they negated the “benefits” that one supposedly got from “eating Jesus”. They could not claim the communion host “nourished” those who received it with anything other than the nutritional value of a simple piece of bread. “Oh what a tangled web they weave, when they practice to deceive.”

Rome also claims that “Mary is the co-mediatrix of all graces”, which means that all the “grace that flows through the mass” must pass through her hands, yet Mary was absent from the last supper. Why is this, if she is such an important factor in grace? One more lie Rome adds to her list.

Jesus did speak of Himself as the true bread, (“and the bread that I will give is my flesh, WHICH I WILL GIVE for the life of the world” - clearly indicating that He would die for the sins of the world), but He also spoke of the leavened bread. Jesus said, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.” (Matt.16:6) If Rome took the “literal” approach to interpreting this verse, as she does with John 6, she would be warning her people to avoid yeast in bread. But just as Jesus told us that the flesh profiteth nothing, but that His words were “spirit and life” (Jn.6:63), He also taught us the spiritual meaning of “leaven” in bread.

“How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, BUT THE DOCTRINE of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.” (Matt.16:11-12)

Paul also expounded on the subject of the “bread” of the “Passover”.

“Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” (1Cor.5:6-8)

We see here the “bread of sincerity and truth” and the “unleavened bread of malice and wickedness.” Now, let’s look at a few other scriptures dealing with “bread”, to better understand the language of the Bible.

1Ki.22:27 “bread of affliction”

Ps.80:5 “bread of tears”

Ps.127:2 “bread of sorrows”

Pr.4:17 “bread of wickedness”

Pr.23:6 “bread of him that hath an evil eye”

Pr.31:27 “bread of idleness”

Isa.30:20 “bread of adversity”

Isa.30:23 “bread of the increase of the earth”

Eze.4:13 “defiled bread”

Eze.24:17 “bread of men”

Ho.9:4 “bread of mourners”

Mal.1:7 “polluted bread”

Ps.105:40 “bread of heaven”

Mt.6:11 “daily bread”

Mr.7:27 “children's bread”

Jn.6:35 “bread of life”

Just a short study of “bread” proves that the words of Jesus were indeed “spirit”. Let’s look at a couple other verses concerning “bread” that may help the Catholic understand the importance of taking the spiritual meaning of John 6.

“Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.” (Isa.55:1-3)

Notice the bread that God gives is “without price”, the reason being, Christ paid it all with the sacrifice of His life, therefore you could not buy this bread with your own labour. When we “eat” that which is “good” it is our soul that “delights itself in fatness” and notice the next line, “hear, and your soul shall live” Why does Rome teach her people they must labour for their bread? Now, let’s continue in Isa 55 and read carefully verses 10-11:

“For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: SO SHALL MY WORD BE that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”

Now compare that verse with the following from Jeremiah 15:16:

“Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart.”

Cross-reference that with Amos 8:11:

“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD.”

These Bible references connect “eating” with “hearing” just as John 6:40 does. Does the Bible do this often? The answer is yes! “For the ear trieth words, as the mouth tasteth meat.” (Job 34:3) To be continued....

By Rebecca A. Sexton 1