Debate with a Protestant what is the gospel of Christ

[uuu2me]

The Gospel of Christ to Protestant s is different

Romans 10- 8-9-10

Than the Gospel to catholics

1. The real presence Eucharist
2. Mary co Redeemer praying to dead people

3 believe the manestrate

This is the Gospel according to Marian cathatist by fr john harden.

The Protestant gospel seems easer. And less confusing.

 

[Church_Militant]

You don’t know what you’re talking about.
How Is A Catholic Saved?
Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”?

 

[Church_Militant]

The Protestant gospel seems easer. And less confusing.

Neither of those is a test of orthodoxy. The Gospel found in the New Testament (as my 2nd link points out) is not the same one that many n-Cs preach and is therefore both different and deficient.

Look at the Gospel reading from today’s Mass and see that lack of understanding is not a basis for discerning the truth.

Gospel Mt 13:1-23

***On that day, Jesus went out of the house and sat down by the sea.
Such large crowds gathered around him
that he got into a boat and sat down,
and the whole crowd stood along the shore.
And he spoke to them at length in parables, saying:
“A sower went out to sow.
And as he sowed, some seed fell on the path,
and birds came and ate it up.
Some fell on rocky ground, where it had little soil.
It sprang up at once because the soil was not deep,
and when the sun rose it was scorched,
and it withered for lack of roots.
Some seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it.
But some seed fell on rich soil, and produced fruit,
a hundred or sixty or thirtyfold.
Whoever has ears ought to hear.”

The disciples approached him and said,
“Why do you speak to them in parables?”
He said to them in reply,
"Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven
has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted.
To anyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich;
from anyone who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
This is why I speak to them in parables, because
*they look but do not see and hear but do not listen or understand. ****
Isaiah’s prophecy is fulfilled in them, which says:
*You shall indeed hear but not understand,
you shall indeed look but never see.
Gross is the heart of this people,
they will hardly hear with their ears,
they have closed their eyes,
lest they see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their hearts and be converted,
and I heal them.
*
"But blessed are your eyes, because they see,
and your ears, because they hear.
Amen, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people
longed to see what you see but did not see it,
and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

“Hear then the parable of the sower.
The seed sown on the path is the one
who hears the word of the kingdom without understanding it,
and the evil one comes and steals away
what was sown in his heart.
The seed sown on rocky ground
is the one who hears the word and receives it at once with joy.
But he has no root and lasts only for a time.
When some tribulation or persecution comes because of the word,
he immediately falls away.
The seed sown among thorns is the one who hears the word,
but then worldly anxiety and the lure of riches choke the word
and it bears no fruit.
But the seed sown on rich soil
is the one who hears the word and understands it,
who indeed bears fruit and yields a hundred or sixty or thirtyfold.”

 

[Mary_Estelle]

I would never try to debate with a Protestant. No. 1, you are assuming you are more knowlegable and that is pride and vanity. No. 2, A fervent, well versed Protestant will only dig in his/her heels and not be swayed. No. 3, I believe that teaching by example, with love and charity is more powerful than any debate. And finally, at No. 4, Our Lord Himself said, “In my Fathers House there are Many Mansions,” which means there is room for all of us in the Kingdom of Heaven. Don’t ever think you have the only key to the front door. Peace.

 

[jcrichton]

The Gospel of Christ to Protestant s is different

Romans 10- 8-9-10

Than the Gospel to catholics

1. The real presence Eucharist
2. Mary co Redeemer praying to dead people

3 believe the manestrate

This is the Gospel according to Marian cathatist by fr john harden.

The Protestant gospel seems easer. And less confusing.

Hi!

…yes, it is!

…Catholic Church: three major grouping (Rites) which subdivide into about 20 Rites altogether.

…non-Catholics: about 38,000 different denominations

…yeah, Catholic vs. non-Catholics the non-Catholic win in being easier and less confusing… here’s how it works (from my own personal perspective): issue happens, voting takes place, the disgruntled open a new branch down the road or in the next township–ditto finito on the next issue or the next or the next…

Is there complexity (difference) in vocabulary? Yes.

Is there complexity (difference) in form (worship, belief)? Yes.

…consider the Sacraments… Catholics: Seven; non-Catholics: zero or one or two or… (it depends upon the factions and the ruling body)

…yet, there are differences that are only on the surface, vocabulary: most non-Catholics agree with the Catholic Church on important issues: Jesus is God, the Holy Trinity is God’s Revelation about Himself, sin leads to death (Spiritual), Salvation is found in Christ…

…still, there are issues that remain unresolved… these are usually tied to “the Church’s Authority.”

…one measure is to look at the number of competing “Christian” theologies and sects; another is to look into Church history (no not Luther), first century Church history, and one other measure is to dissect the dividing issues between the Catholic Church and non-Catholics…

…let’s take the Sacrament of Marriage: the Church Teaches that it is an act between man and woman in God and it is not dissoluble–which is what Jesus Taught; non-Catholics believe that it is some binding agreement, but not so binding that it cannot be broken (as many times as it has to be); who Believes Christ’s Word?

…does it matter if it seems easier or harder to understand/follow or does it matters if it is in Fellowship with Christ or with man?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jlhargus]

The Gospel of Christ to Protestant s is different Romans 10- 8-9-10

Not to be flippant 2me, as a former Fundamentalist Protestant I can testify the Gospel to Protestants is different, by the thousands and still adding different Protestant gospels yearly. Actually there is no such thing as one Protestant gospel.

[Rms10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.]

Rms10:8-10 is not the entire gospel it is only one part of the gospel of Christ. Acts2 below gives a little more detail but is not the entire gospel.

[Acts2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. 37 Now **when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.]

Acts2 adds a little more light on how one is saved and what one is added to. Hear the Word, pricked in the heart or convicted by the Holy Spirit, repent, be baptized calling on the name of the Lord for remission of sins and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Also with their baptism they were added to the One Body of Christ=the Church. The one Apostolic Fellowship sent by Christ Mt28:16-20. They steadfastly continued in the apostles doctrine=teaching, breaking of bread=Mass, and prayers.

Than the Gospel to catholics

1. The real presence Eucharist
2. Mary co Redeemer praying to dead people
   3 believe the manestrate

This is the Gospel according to Marian cathatist by fr john harden.

All the above are a part of the gospel not the entire gospel. Time permitting I will try to answer, with scriptural evidence for the Eucharist, Mary co-redeemer, praying to the living, souls, saints in heaven, not to dead bodies and the magisterium=teaching authority of the Church.

 

[Church_Militant]

I would never try to debate with a Protestant. No. 1, you are assuming you are more knowlegable and that is pride and vanity. No. 2, A fervent, well versed Protestant will only dig in his/her heels and not be swayed. No. 3, I believe that teaching by example, with love and charity is more powerful than any debate. And finally, at No. 4, Our Lord Himself said, “In my Fathers House there are Many Mansions,” which means there is room for all of us in the Kingdom of Heaven. Don’t ever think you have the only key to the front door. Peace.

Not necessarily. I have several friends that were led to conversion through our dialogs which was sometimes debate-like. It all really depends upon the individual you’re talking to.

Of course any discussion is useless if you aren’t living out your faith to the best of your ability. That’s a given, but if you’re dong your best there’s no reason not to be faithful to this passage from St. Peter’s 1 epistle.
***15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, 16 but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame. ***17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that be the will of God, than for doing evil.

Your passage about the mansions is nice but we also have the example of St. Paul who contended with those who opposed the faith on a regular basis, so we each need to do the best we can.

If one feels inadequate to the task there is ample remedy coming up just this week from Catholic apologetics evangelist John Martignoni so by all means check them out. I already have my TiVo set to record them.

As I mentioned in my email the other day, 7 more Blue Collar Apologetics episodes will be airing this coming week on EWTN Television . They will air Monday through Sunday (July 17 - July 23), at 5:30 PM Central .
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Mary_Estelle]

As I posted…I would never try to debate with a Protestant. This my own opinion and I gave the reasons why. Not here to argue, but I think to debate is a strong and often adverse approach to the road to conversion. I offered my opinion and that is that. Peace.

 

[Darryl_B]

The Gospel of Christ to Protestant s is different

Romans 10- 8-9-10

Than the Gospel to catholics

1. The real presence Eucharist
2. Mary co Redeemer praying to dead people

3 believe the manestrate

This is the Gospel according to Marian cathatist by fr john harden.

The Protestant gospel seems easer. And less confusing.

My friend, my question for you is how well do you know your subject matter? Remember that Romans was written to for and about Jewish religion. Paul quotes Deut 30:11-14. What does that say? For this commandment which I command you … if you obey the commandments … by loving the Lord your God, by walking in his ways …

Paul’s citation linked with Jesus Christ, makes the gospel into doing all that Jesus Christ said to do. That is far more complex than just a recognition of Jesus Christs existence, for even the demons believe that, and at least tremble.

 

[jcrichton]

Not to be flippant 2me, as a former Fundamentalist Protestant I can testify the Gospel to Protestants is different, by the thousands and still adding different Protestant gospels yearly. Actually there is no such thing as one Protestant gospel.

[Rms10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.]

Rms10:8-10 is not the entire gospel it is only one part of the gospel of Christ. Acts2 below gives a little more detail but is not the entire gospel.

[Acts2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. 37 Now **when they heard

this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.]

Acts2 adds a little more light on how one is saved and what one is added to. Hear the Word, pricked in the heart or convicted by the Holy Spirit, repent, be baptized calling on the name of the Lord for remission of sins and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Also with their baptism they were added to the One Body of Christ=the Church. The one Apostolic Fellowship sent by Christ Mt28:16-20. They steadfastly continued in the apostles doctrine=teaching, breaking of bread=Mass, and prayers.

All the above are a part of the gospel not the entire gospel. Time permitting I will try to answer, with scriptural evidence for the Eucharist, Mary co-redeemer, praying to the living, souls, saints in heaven, not to dead bodies and the magisterium=teaching authority of the Church.Hi, J!

…the highlighted part is the part that most Protestants and some Catholics refuse to accept: One Baptism, One Faith, One Body, One Lord, One God!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

As I posted…I would never try to debate with a Protestant. This my own opinion and I gave the reasons why. Not here to argue, but I think to debate is a strong and often adverse approach to the road to conversion. I offered my opinion and that is that. Peace.

Hi, Mary!

…no one is suggesting that you engage anyone in a debate… but too many times Catholic “silence” is taken as ‘they are wrong’ or ‘do not know Scriptures’ or ‘are not Christians’ or ‘xyz…’

…consider also that there’s no way to make known the Truth unless we share it through direct engagement…

…I have worked alongside people who used profanity as Oxygen… without directing a word to them, some stopped on their own, at least when around me; a few even directed the issue openly–they wanted to know why I would not be part of the colorful lingo… a few others I had to actually school in keeping me out of their conversations as they would not relent in demanding that I “be a man” (…well, not in those words).

The same goes to the Faith and the Church… unless we share our minds… not even the best mind readers can know what makes us tick… and it is also Scriptural:

15 But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you

. 16 But with modesty and fear, having a good conscience: that whereas they speak evil of you, they may be ashamed who falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. (1 St. Peter 3:15-16)
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[steve_b]

The Gospel of Christ to Protestant s is different

Romans 10- 8-9-10

Do you know who Romans is written to?
It’s written to The Church of Rome. The same Church today, pope Francis is over, 266th successor to Peter at Rome. The Catholic Church,

The Church has been Catholic from the 1st century. The English word Catholic is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos which is a compound word from kata, which means according to, and holos, which means whole. catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

So one THEN can ask, where does kata holos appear in scripture and particularly kata holos ekklesia ?

Acts 9:31 the church throughout all ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς ,Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria…" = the Kataholos Church.

The Church Bp Ignatius of Antioch calls the Church that holds the presidency

Links are all operational

Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch from ~69 a.d. to ~107 a.d. He was ordained by the apostles, and was a direct disciple of St John. It was in Antioch where the disciples were first called Christian Acts 11:26 . And Ignatius in his writings uses both “Christian” and “Catholic Church” in his writings.

• St Ignatius, among the 6 letters he wrote to the Church in 6 locations, he says the Church of Rome holds the presidency Epistle to the Romans - see the introduction. ] . Ignatius uses Christian in (ch 2) and Catholic Church in (ch 8) Epistle to the Smyrnæans of which schismatics won’t be going to heaven Epistle to the Philadelphians (ch 3) . As an aside, where would Ignatius learn to teach that the name of the Church is the Catholic Church, and the one holding the presidency is Rome, and that the warning and corresponding consequence for one’s soul, for commiting and remaining in the sin of schism / division from the Catholic Church is condemned? Paul condemned division / dissention from the Church Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21 and that came from Jesus who does NOT approve of division in His Church John 17:20-23 , and since the HS only teaches what comes from Jesus John 16:12-15 no one can say the HS inspired all the division we see today in Christianity. There is no expiration date to that warning and condemnation
• St Polycarp, Bp Smyrna, disciple of St John called the Church the “Catholic Church” The Martyrdom of Polycarp
• Muratorian canon earlychristianwritings.co…uratoria n.html uses authority of “Catholic Church” in determining the canon
• Irenaeus ~180 a.d. wrote “Against Heresies” called the Church the “Catholic Church” Adversus haereses [Bk 1 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103110.htm”]Chapter 10 v 3], and also Irenaeus who was taught by Polycarp, teaches all must agree with Rome [Bk 3, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm”]Chapter 3, v 2-3]
• Cyprian~250 a.d. calls the Church the Catholic Church Epistle 54
• The Nicene Creed, 325 a.d., it’s a matter of faith to believe in the “One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church”
• Augustine ~395 There are many other things that most justly keep me in her * bosom. . . . The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental (ch 5 v6)
• etc

uuu2me:

Than the Gospel to catholics

1. The real presence Eucharist
2. Mary co Redeemer praying to dead people

3 believe the manestrate

This is the Gospel according to Marian cathatist by fr john harden.

The Protestant gospel seems easer. And less confusing.

hang around and ask questions. You’ll find out what the Catholic Church teaches.

Protestantism = catholic.com/tract/the-great-heresies*

 

[jlhargus]

uuu2me; 14780581:

The real presents Eucharist

The evidence for the real presence is found explicitly many times in the bible. Just as Abraham’s faith was tested by a hard saying, sacrifice your only son. Just as Israel’s faith was tested in the wilderness. So Christ tested the faith of those in Jn6.

Blessed are you for you have seen and believe, but more blessed is he who has not seen and believes. Catholics accept, by faith, the witness of God’s Word as taught by the pillar and ground of Truth, 1Tm3:15, the Church. Those Christ promised to Guide into all Truth, Jn16:13. Those He sent to teach the world promising to be them till the end, Mt28:16-20.

Christ was not a literal door, Jn10:9, Christ was not a literal vine, Christ was not a literal lion, Christ was not a literal lamb and rivers of living water do not literally flow out of our bellies. Ask yourself, did any one misunderstand when Christ used any of the above metaphors, or any of the others he used. How many said, “how can this man be a vine?” How many complained, these are hard sayings who can hear them? How many Followed Him No More, when he said these things? None.

Because they understood perfectly, he was speaking symbolically. Christ never held a door in his hands and said, this Is my body, Christ never took a vine in his hands and said, this Is my blood. Christ did take bread in his hands and said, this Is my body, Christ did take a cup of wine in his hands and said, this Is my blood.

When Christ said in Jn6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?] The crowd, of Jewish unbelievers, who followed him because they were fed with the loaves and fish questioned How? Because they clearly understood his meaning to be literal.

[Jn6:53 Then **Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.] Jesus states it more strongly, making it even more clear, my flesh is meat indeed, my blood is drink indeed. It was a hard saying, because they understood him literally. His meaning was literal not symbolic. A symbol would not have been a hard saying, but an easy saying to accept.

Jn6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?] Now a second group, his **disciples **, are finding it a hard saying and murmured, questioning How.

[Jn6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that **his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?] It would have offended and disgusted me, not knowing How. I would have thought he wanted us to eat his body and drink his blood when he died.

That’s why he gives his flesh and blood to eat under the appearance of bread and wine. It does not offend or disgust it looks, feels, smells, tastes as bread and wine. We know How now. We recognize him in the breaking of bread, as those on the road to Emmaus.

Lk24:30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. …. 31-34 …. 35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.]

Some find believing he is present under the appearance of bread and wine, an impossible hard saying. Today, many still fail the test asking how or saying it is symbolic.

[Jn6:63 **It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.]

Some claim Jn6:63 proves Christ was speaking symbolically. Yet it was After saying this many of His disciples, not just the crowd, walked no more with him. Why would his disciples leave if Christ confirmed a symbolic meaning? They left because they knew He meant it literally and took him at his Word. CONTINUED

 

[jlhargus]

Our Lord said, “no man can come unto me, Except given him of My Father”. It is the Spirit that quickeneth us, the flesh profits nothing. The carnal mind cannot see. Our Lord said [Jn6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that **every one which seeth the son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.]

How do we see the Son? by faith taking him at his literal Word. We recognize him in the breaking of bread, as those on the road to Emmaus, by the Spirit of God. It is the Spirit who reveals divine truths they are not discerned by the carnal mind. Christ’s flesh profits eternal life.

Jn 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.] First the crowd, then many of His disciples followed him no more. After the so called symbolic verse, Jn6:63. Christ then turns to the twelve apostles.

Jn6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?] Our Lord was not willing to water down his literal statement for anyone, not the crowd, not his disciples and not even the twelve apostles. Not even if he had to ascend back to heaven, [Jn6:61 When **Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before?].

[Jn6:68 Then Simon **Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.] Peter has taken it as a literal hard saying, not knowing how Christ’s flesh is food indeed and his blood drink indeed. Yet Peter accepted believing and trusting in whom Christ revealed himself to be.]

[Jn6:70 **Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.] The early Church Fathers saw this as the time Judas, no longer walked with Christ.]

[1Cor11:27 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. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.]

One can’t be guilty of the body and blood of Christ eating and drinking bread and wine. Paul gives two ways to discern. It is the body and blood or it is not. Paul says those who eat and drink unworthily do Not discern the Lord’s body but eats and drinks damnation.

The people of Christ’s day were also outraged, when Christ claimed to be equal to God, Jn10:33. For them believing, God became flesh, was as impossible as some find believing he is really present under appearance of bread and wine. Scripture Explicitly says [Jn6:55 For **my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.]

 

[jcrichton]

The evidence for the real presence is found explicitly many times in the bible. Just as Abraham’s faith was tested by a hard saying, sacrifice your only son. Just as Israel’s faith was tested in the wilderness. So Christ tested the faith of those in Jn6.

Blessed are you for you have seen and believe, but more blessed is he who has not seen and believes. Catholics accept, by faith, the witness of God’s Word as taught by the pillar and ground of Truth, 1Tm3:15, the Church. Those Christ promised to Guide into all Truth, Jn16:13. Those He sent to teach the world promising to be them till the end, Mt28:16-20.

**Christ was not a literal door, Jn10:9, Christ was not a literal vine, Christ was not a literal lion, Christ was not a literal lamb and rivers of living water do not literally flow out of our bellies. Ask yourself, did any one misunderstand when Christ used any of the above metaphors, or any of the others he used. How many said, “how can this man be a vine?” How many complained, these are hard sayings who can hear them? How many Followed Him No More, when he said these things? None.

Because they understood perfectly, he was speaking symbolically. Christ never held a door in his hands and said, this Is my body, Christ never took a vine in his hands and said, this Is my blood. Christ did take bread in his hands and said, this Is my body, Christ did take a cup of wine in his hands and said, this Is my blood. **
When Christ said in Jn6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?] The crowd, of Jewish unbelievers, who followed him because they were fed with the loaves and fish questioned How? Because they clearly understood his meaning to be literal.

[Jn6:53 Then **Jesus said

unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.] Jesus states it more strongly, making it even more clear, my flesh is meat indeed, my blood is drink indeed. It was a hard saying, because they understood him literally. His meaning was literal not symbolic. A symbol would not have been a hard saying, but an easy saying to accept.

Jn6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?] Now a second group, his **disciples **, are finding it a hard saying and murmured, questioning How.

[Jn6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that **his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?] It would have offended and disgusted me, not knowing How. I would have thought he wanted us to eat his body and drink his blood when he died.

That’s why he gives his flesh and blood to eat under the appearance of bread and wine. It does not offend or disgust it looks, feels, smells, tastes as bread and wine. We know How now. We recognize him in the breaking of bread, as those on the road to Emmaus.

Lk24:30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. …. 31-34 …. 35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.]

Some find believing he is present under the appearance of bread and wine, an impossible hard saying. Today, many still fail the test asking how or saying it is symbolic.

[Jn6:63 **It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.]

Some claim Jn6:63 proves Christ was speaking symbolically. Yet it was After saying this many of His disciples, not just the crowd, walked no more with him. Why would his disciples leave if Christ confirmed a symbolic meaning? They left because they knew He meant it literally and took him at his Word. CONTINUEDHi, J!

I’ve highlighted a portion of your post because this is an excellent argument; it hits on the visual effect!

…I could almost picture Jesus holding a heavy door over His head so that… ‘can those in the back see it?’

…but the comparison is tremendous!
:tiphat::clapping::clapping::clapping:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Our Lord said, “no man can come unto me, Except given him of My Father”. It is the Spirit that quickeneth us, the flesh profits nothing. The carnal mind cannot see. Our Lord said [Jn6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that **every one which seeth the son

, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.]

How do we see the Son? by faith taking him at his literal Word. We recognize him in the breaking of bread, as those on the road to Emmaus, by the Spirit of God. It is the Spirit who reveals divine truths they are not discerned by the carnal mind. Christ’s flesh profits eternal life.

Jn 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.] First the crowd, then many of His disciples followed him no more. After the so called symbolic verse, Jn6:63. Christ then turns to the twelve apostles.

Jn6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?] Our Lord was not willing to water down his literal statement for anyone, not the crowd, not his disciples and not even the twelve apostles. Not even if he had to ascend back to heaven, [Jn6:61 When **Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before?].

[Jn6:68 Then Simon **Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.] Peter has taken it as a literal hard saying, not knowing how Christ’s flesh is food indeed and his blood drink indeed. Yet Peter accepted believing and trusting in whom Christ revealed himself to be.]

[Jn6:70 **Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.] The early Church Fathers saw this as the time Judas, no longer walked with Christ.]

[1Cor11:27 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. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.]

One can’t be guilty of the body and blood of Christ eating and drinking bread and wine. Paul gives two ways to discern. It is the body and blood or it is not. Paul says those who eat and drink unworthily do Not discern the Lord’s body but eats and drinks damnation.

**The people of Christ’s day were also outraged, when Christ claimed to be equal to God, Jn10:33. For them believing, God became flesh, was as impossible as some find believing he is really present under appearance of bread and wine. Scripture Explicitly says [Jn6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.]Hi, J!

…again, excellent post!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jlhargus]

Hi, J!

…again, excellent post!

Maran atha!

Angel

Thanks Jcrichton