Is the "Real Presence" real?

[justinthemartyr]

JOHN 6 - all literal, never symbolic
There are five reasons that jesus was speaking literally and not symbolically about His real flesh and blood.

1. This discourse takes place just after the famous miracle of the fish and loaves. This miracle should really be called the
   “Multi-location” of the fish and loaves. The Apostles distribute five loaves of bread to a huge crowd. The VERY SAME FIVE LOAVES
   feed thousands of hungry people at the same time, filling twelve baskets with leftovers! This clearly prefigures the one body of Christ being really and truly present to millions of people , without being divided or diminished.
2. Jesus claims the 'superiority ’ of His flesh over the manna which God gave the people in the desert." I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die"(vs 48-50)jn 6 The miracle of the manna was enormous: Everyday several israelites received an omer(abouit two quarts) of manna per person. This amounts to several tons of manna raining down in the desert daily(except the sabbath) for FORTY YEARS! Jesus says He will perform an even greater miracle than the manna. But mere earthly, natural bread serving as a symbol of Christ would be inferior to the heavenly, supernatural manna. The bread Christ gives us mUST be MORE REAL and MORE MIRACULOUS than even the manna.
3. Everyone who heard Jesus understood him to be speaking LITERALLY of his body and blood. " how can he give us his flesh to eat"?, object the unbelieving jews(vs 52) “this saying is too hard, who can accept it”? declare his unbelieving disciples(vs 60)
   Many of these disciples had lived, eaten and walked with Jesus for nearly two years. They spoke the same language and dialect as Jesus. Day in and Day out, they heard him use different figures of speech. They heard him speak symbolically, using parables, allegories,and analogies(such as calling herod a fox). They also heard him speak literally, meaning exactly what he said. In Christs Eucharistic discourse, these disciples heard him “live”. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a live presentation is worth a thousand pictures. Yet these same disciples- many of whom quit following Christ-never even asked Jesus to explain himself. They understood perfectly that jesus meant precisely what he said!
   ( how can we, living 2000 years later , think we can know more about what Jesus said than those who experieneced Him firsthand and knew the ancient languages. How can wwe think we can know these ancient languages 2000 years removed from the time they were being fluently spoken and used by millions who were familiar with them)? It would be the height of arrogance to assume that all the eye and ear witnesses got it all wrong, while we, far removed from the time, place language and culture-got it right!)
4. Instead of explaining that His listeners were misunderstanding him, that he was only spekaing figuratively, Jesus- using the strongest language possible, emphatically REPEATS the literalness of this teaching, six times in six verses(vs 53-58)! " amen amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you"(vs 53).
   “My flesh is REAL FOOD and my blood REAL DRINK”(vs 55)
   This is NOT the language of symbolism!
5. Many of Jesus’ own disciples can’t accept the literalness of His teaching and leave him(vs66). Notice that Jesus DOESN"T call them back and explain that he is only speaking figuratively, as he did on previous occasions when they mistook Him for speaking literally. For example, in John 4:31-34, Jesus says" I have food to eat of which you do not know". His disciples take him literally, so Jesus explains " My food is to do the will of the One who sent me". In Matthew 16:5-12, Jesus says " beware of the leaven of the pharisees and sadducees". Once again, his disciples think Jesus is speaking literally. Again, Jesus corrects them and explains that he is not talkoing about real bread. " then they understood that he was not telling them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the pharisees and Sadducees".

(Jesus’ reaction to objections is remakably consistent. Whenever an audience WRONGLY understands Him to be speking literally and raises objections, Jesus’ canstant practice is to EXPLAIN that he was only speaking figuratively(see John 3:3-5, Matthew 1924-26, JOhn 8:21-23, John 8:32-36John8:39-44 and John 16:18-22
On the other hand, when the audience RIGHTLY understands Him to be speaking literally and raises objections, Jesus’ Jesus" constant practice is to repeat what he said(se Matthew 9:2-6, John8:56-59, and john 6:42-51). When the Jews object to Jesus saying the bread He will give is His flesh , does Jeuss explain himself or repeat himself? Jesus emphatically repeats Himself six times in a row, confirming that he intends to be understood literally.)

peace, justin

“beginning apologetics” series

 

[stinkcat_14]

No I’m definitely not infallible nor do I claim to be infallible. But then again I don’t think anyone is infallible. The only thing that is infallible to me is the Word of GOD. And those Words are contained in scripture and in scripture alone.

I don’t think we can just run off and interpret the Bible on our own. I always seek assistance. But I will not say that one person or group of people are absolutely right on every single piece of scripture.

What good is an infallible scripture if you can never know that your interpretation of scripture is true?

 

[Protestant101]

what do you mean " a voice that talks to us from the ground"?

what does gen 4 have to do with this topic?

you are grasping at straws.

(Jesus’ reaction to objections is remakably consistent. Whenever an audience WRONGLY understands Him to be speking literally and raises objections, Jesus’ constant practice is to EXPLAIN that he was only speaking figuratively(see John 3:3-5, Matthew 1924-26, JOhn 8:21-23, John 8:32-36John8:39-44 and John 16:18-22
On the other hand, when the audience RIGHTLY understands Him to be speaking literally and raises objections, Jesus’ Jesus" constant practice is to repeat what he said(se Matthew 9:2-6, John8:56-59, and john 6:42-51). When the Jews object to Jesus saying the bread He will give is His flesh , does Jeuss explain himself or repeat himself? Jesus emphatically repeats Himself six times in a row, confirming that he intends to be understood literally.)

LOL; it’s only “literal” because you say it is. The text in Gen I gave above proves the consitency of scripture in using “blood” in a symbolic way; and it does suggest the possibility of John 6, therefore, as using the same symbolic context for “blood.” And if it does so for “blood” then why not the “bread/flesh?” And yes; I know blood is not always symbolic, but we need to see from scripture the types of ways that it is thus used.

 

[surfinpure]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/surf(name removed by moderator)ure/euchmn2m.jpg

Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk’s doubt about Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist.
During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.
The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions as the large host used today in the Latin church; it is light brown and appears rose-colored when lighted from the back.
The Blood is coagulated and has an earthy color resembling the yellow of ochre.
Various ecclesiastical investigation (“Recognitions”) were conducted since 1574.
In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.
The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:

• The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.
• The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
• The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.
• In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.
• The Flesh is a “HEART” complete in its essential structure.
• The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).
• In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
• In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
• The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.
  For the entire article including photos, go here: therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

 

[Protestant101]

During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.
The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions as the large host used today in the Latin church; it is light brown and appears rose-colored when lighted from the back.
The Blood is coagulated and has an earthy color resembling the yellow of ochre.
Various ecclesiastical investigation (“Recognitions”) were conducted since 1574.
In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.
The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:

• The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.
• The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
• The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.
• In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.
• The Flesh is a “HEART” complete in its essential structure.
• The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).
• In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
• In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
• The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.
  For the entire article including photos, go here: therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

Miracles are not proof of doctrine. Even if the miracle could be proved.

 

[surfinpure]

Miracles are not proof of doctrine. Even if the miracle could be proved.

There is such a thing as deliberate blindness.

 

[justinthemartyr]

LOL; it’s only “literal” because you say it is. The text in Gen I gave above proves the consitency of scripture in using “blood” in a symbolic way; and it does suggest the possibility of John 6, therefore, as using the same symbolic context for “blood.” And if it does so for “blood” then why not the “bread/flesh?” And yes; I know blood is not always symbolic, but we need to see from scripture the types of ways that it is thus used.

and Jesus is clear as to when he is being symbolic and when he is not.

(Jesus’ reaction to objections is remakably consistent. Whenever an audience WRONGLY understands Him to be speking literally and raises objections, Jesus’ canstant practice is to EXPLAIN that he was only speaking figuratively(see John 3:3-5, Matthew 1924-26, JOhn 8:21-23, John 8:32-36John8:39-44 and John 16:18-22
On the other hand, when the audience RIGHTLY understands Him to be speaking literally and raises objections, Jesus’ Jesus" constant practice is to repeat what he said(se Matthew 9:2-6, John8:56-59, and john 6:42-51). When the Jews object to Jesus saying the bread He will give is His flesh , does Jeuss explain himself or repeat himself? Jesus emphatically repeats Himself six times in a row, confirming that he intends to be understood literally.)

 

[justinthemartyr]

yes, i understand that this one is almost impossible to refute.

 

[sambos671]

I must say that the Matthew verse is more convinsing to me than the John verse.

 

[guanophore]

What part of this is “figurative/symbolic?” It is obvious to anyone that blood does not literally have a “voice” that talks to us from the ground. The John 6 uses of “blood” and “bread” or “flesh” are used in the same SYMBOLIC way.

How do you know what God can hear in a man’s blood? How does blood “figuratively” cry out from the ground any better than it does literally?

Symbolic only in the sense that they actually embody what they represent. Jesus said “this is my body”. He meant what He said.

Or do you think He gave HIs “symbolic” flesh and blood for the life of the world. Maybe you agree with paarsurrey, who says that Jesus survived the crucifixion, and travelled to Iraq and India with His mother?

LOL; it’s only “literal” because you say it is. The text in Gen I gave above proves the consitency of scripture in using “blood” in a symbolic way; and it does suggest the possibility of John 6, therefore, as using the same symbolic context for “blood.” And if it does so for “blood” then why not the “bread/flesh?” And yes; I know blood is not always symbolic, but we need to see from scripture the types of ways that it is thus used.

Yes, I agree. But we also need to look at history, and see how it was understood by those who wrote it. THis is how we get the literal interpretation for the Bread and the Wine in the EUcharist.

Miracles are not proof of doctrine. Even if the miracle could be proved.

John 2:23-24

23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did;

On the contrary, the signs confirm the Truth. They testify to it.

John 12:37-38
37 Though he had done so many signs before them, yet they did not believe in him; 3

Obviously, for the hard of heart, signs won’t do it either.

 

[Protestant101]

There is such a thing as deliberate blindness.

True; but I don’t SEE it.

 

[Protestant101]

Yes, I agree. But we also need to look at history, and see how it was understood by those who wrote it. THis is how we get the literal interpretation for the Bread and the Wine in the EUcharist.

History can be manipulated so easily by activist elements for a given church; to depend upon historical elements for deciphering scripture clearly would not always be reliable.

 

[teadough]

History can be manipulated so easily by activist elements for a given church; to depend upon historical elements for deciphering scripture clearly would not always be reliable.

by the above statement one would think that you belong to a denomination that has changed doctrine several times. Oh,wait

 

[Protestant101]

by the above statement one would think that you belong to a denomination that has changed doctrine several times. Oh,wait

You picked an interesting venue to make such a statement; however, because you have mentioned this same concern in other threads; I will say that you appear to have a different agenda than the topic of this thread.

 

[justinthemartyr]

Protestant 101

It is not I who says it is literal, jesus’s own way of dealing with these matters makes it evident that He is speaking literally.

It seems you either missed my posts regarding this, or you glossed over them because you cannot overcome the facts. Here it is again.

and Jesus is clear as to when he is being symbolic and when he is not.

(Jesus’ reaction to objections is remakably consistent. Whenever an audience WRONGLY understands Him to be speking literally and raises objections, Jesus’ constant practice is to EXPLAIN that he was only speaking figuratively(see John 3:3-5, Matthew 1924-26, JOhn 8:21-23, John 8:32-36John8:39-44 and John 16:18-22 he always explains himself in these situations where they think he is being literal, but he is not, he is only speaking figuratively.

On the other hand, when the audience RIGHTLY understands Him to be speaking literally and raises objections, Jesus’ constant practice is to repeat what he said(se Matthew 9:2-6, John8:56-59, and john 6:42-51). When the Jews object to Jesus saying the bread He will give is His flesh , does Jesus explain himself or repeat himself? Jesus emphatically repeats Himself six times in a row, confirming that he intends to be understood literally.)

 

[Protestant101]

Protestant 101

(Jesus’ reaction to objections is remakably consistent. Whenever an audience WRONGLY understands Him to be speking literally and raises objections, Jesus’ constant practice is to EXPLAIN that he was only speaking figuratively(see John 3:3-5, Matthew 1924-26, JOhn 8:21-23, John 8:32-36John8:39-44 and John 16:18-22 he always explains himself in these situations where they think he is being literal, but he is not, he is only speaking figuratively.

On the other hand, when the audience RIGHTLY understands Him to be speaking literally and raises objections, Jesus’ constant practice is to repeat what he said(se Matthew 9:2-6, John8:56-59, and john 6:42-51). When the Jews object to Jesus saying the bread He will give is His flesh , does Jesus explain himself or repeat himself? Jesus emphatically repeats Himself six times in a row, confirming that he intends to be understood literally.)

This is a tunnel-visioned rule that you have made up. Each situation Jesus addressed was unique and it actually was not His practice to ALWAYS respond in only these two ways. In Jo.6; Jesus actually did not say to understand it literally anywhere. Which verse did He say this in. Like the text example I gave from gen.; Jesus was using a form of speech to indicate/symbolize the real truth of the matter; and He did not explain Himself the way you say he is supposed to, because there was no need. Those who want to consider ALL that the Bible reveals about context in a given passage would have the current Protestant view that John 6 intended to use the words “bread,” “flesh” or “blood” in a symbolic way. Even in the OT sanctuary; there is no example/type of people having to drink the blood, not even Priests, and no example of anyone in the NT having to eat human or divine flesh, for it was the blood sprinkled on the altar that was the sacrifice for sin. The body of the Lamb is not used for this purpose. Even when the OT Priesthood would SOMETIMES eat the flesh of the Lamb; it did not atone for the sin, until later, when other things were done in the sanctuary. Jesus said: “Do this in REMBRANCE OF ME;” not in atonement for our sins. This is kind of like when God said to “remember” the Sabbath day. There are some things Catholics do not wish to “remember.” But that is their authority, not God’s.

 

[guanophore]

This is a tunnel-visioned rule that you have made up. Each situation Jesus addressed was unique and it actually was not His practice to ALWAYS respond in only these two ways. In Jo.6; Jesus actually did not say to understand it literally anywhere.

It is evident from the behavior of the hearers. What did they hear? Why did they leave when they heard it? Whey did He not call them back, and correct their wrong impression? He did not because what they heard was exactly what He meant. The Apostles did not understand it either, until the Last Supper, but they had faith that He had the Words of Eternal Life.

Which verse did He say this in. Like the text example I gave from gen.; Jesus was using a form of speech to indicate/symbolize the real truth of the matter; and He did not explain Himself the way you say he is supposed to, because there was no need.

I agree. They understood HIm literally, and that is how He meant it.

Those who want to consider ALL that the Bible reveals about context in a given passage would have the current Protestant view that John 6 intended to use the words “bread,” “flesh” or “blood” in a symbolic way.

Do you believe He gave HIs “symbolic flesh and blood” on the cross?

Even in the OT sanctuary; there is no example/type of people having to drink the blood, not even Priests, and no example of anyone in the NT having to eat human or divine flesh, for it was the blood sprinkled on the altar that was the sacrifice for sin. The body of the Lamb is not used for this purpose.

The blood was applied over the doors. Real blood. Not symbolic blood. The flesh of the Lamb was eaten. Not “symbolically”, but consumed.

Even when the OT Priesthood would SOMETIMES eat the flesh of the Lamb; it did not atone for the sin, until later, when other things were done in the sanctuary. Jesus said: “Do this in REMBRANCE OF ME;” not in atonement for our sins.

The amanesis is a ritual rememberance that makes later generations present at the event. By partaking, we become present at the cross, and it’s benefits present to us. This is why, without it, we can have no life. Our life comes through the cross.

This is kind of like when God said to “remember” the Sabbath day. There are some things Catholics do not wish to “remember.” But that is their authority, not God’s.

Oh, we remember the Sabbath. We just remember it on Sunday!

 

[sambos671]

I am a protestant, however, it gives me pause that the three classical churches of christianity have a belief in the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ present in the Eucharist. These churches are the Copts, Orthodox, and Catholics. They have the longest history of tradition and liturgy of any Christian denomination. When you read the early church fathers it is clear without a shadow of doubt they also believed this. Now each of these churches have a different take on how it occures but they believe in the presence of Jesus himself in the Eucharist. So if this practice which was obviously practiced in antiquity is wrong it happened early in the church. Ignatius believed in in his letter to the Smyrnans. This letter was written befor the turn of the 1st century. So this was a practice early at least in Antioch. Some of the apostles were alive and would have knowledge of the practice. Would it not stand to reason then, that the apostles knowing of a faulty teaching would then write about it to all the churches as they have other gnostic issues clearly evident in the New Testiment? The closest thing we have about a faulty practice conserning the Eucharist in the New Testiment is the church of Corinth partying down with it and Paul indicates that they should take the communion seriously and with respect because there were those becoming sick and even dieing. We have no other New Testiment writing indicating that Jesus meant it figuaratively. We can speculate on Jewish tradition. But lets go to the horse mouth so to speak. The earliest practitioners of Christianity. What do they say? They believe in the presence. So Protestant 101 sorry but the early and original church taught this belief. Evidence points to it. You can speculate against it all you want. Keep in mind when I say no “other” that means that there is not another belief that is acceptable about this subject. For instance the term AntiChrist in Greek is to be understood in the context of “another” Christ. Any teaching that replaces the historical teaching and truth of Jesus Christ is Antichrist. I don’t want to accept “another” Christ or I fall into condemnation. We tend to think of anti in the english context of against. But in scripture it is closer to replace. So, I will not frivolously throw away this doctrine of the Eucharist or replace it with another.

 

[guanophore]

I am a protestant, however, it gives me pause that the three classical churches of christianity have a belief in the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ present in the Eucharist. These churches are the Copts, Orthodox, and Catholics. They have the longest history of tradition and liturgy of any Christian denomination. When you read the early church fathers it is clear without a shadow of doubt they also believed this. Now each of these churches have a different take on how it occures but they believe in the presence of Jesus himself in the Eucharist. So if this practice which was obviously practiced in antiquity is wrong it happened early in the church. Ignatius believed in in his letter to the Smyrnans. This letter was written befor the turn of the 1st century. So this was a practice early at least in Antioch. Some of the apostles were alive and would have knowledge of the practice. Would it not stand to reason then, that the apostles knowing of a faulty teaching would then write about it to all the churches as they have other gnostic issues clearly evident in the New Testiment? The closest thing we have about a faulty practice conserning the Eucharist in the New Testiment is the church of Corinth partying down with it and Paul indicates that they should take the communion seriously and with respect because there were those becoming sick and even dieing. We have no other New Testiment writing indicating that Jesus meant it figuaratively. We can speculate on Jewish tradition. But lets go to the horse mouth so to speak. The earliest practitioners of Christianity. What do they say? They believe in the presence. So Protestant 101 sorry but the early and original church taught this belief. Evidence points to it. You can speculate against it all you want. Keep in mind when I say no “other” that means that there is not another belief that is acceptable about this subject. For instance the term AntiChrist in Greek is to be understood in the context of “another” Christ. Any teaching that replaces the historical teaching and truth of Jesus Christ is Antichrist. I don’t want to accept “another” Christ or I fall into condemnation. We tend to think of anti in the english context of against. But in scripture it is closer to replace. So, I will not frivolously throw away this doctrine of the Eucharist or replace it with another.

:clapping: :bowdown2:

 

[justinthemartyr]

This is a tunnel-visioned rule that you have made up. Each situation Jesus addressed was unique and it actually was not His practice to ALWAYS respond in only these two ways. In Jo.6; Jesus actually did not say to understand it literally anywhere. Which verse did He say this in. Like the text example I gave from gen.; Jesus was using a form of speech to indicate/symbolize the real truth of the matter; and He did not explain Himself the way you say he is supposed to, because there was no need. Those who want to consider ALL that the Bible reveals about context in a given passage would have the current Protestant view that John 6 intended to use the words “bread,” “flesh” or “blood” in a symbolic way. Even in the OT sanctuary; there is no example/type of people having to drink the blood, not even Priests, and no example of anyone in the NT having to eat human or divine flesh, for it was the blood sprinkled on the altar that was the sacrifice for sin. The body of the Lamb is not used for this purpose. Even when the OT Priesthood would SOMETIMES eat the flesh of the Lamb; it did not atone for the sin, until later, when other things were done in the sanctuary. Jesus said: “Do this in REMBRANCE OF ME;” not in atonement for our sins. This is kind of like when God said to “remember” the Sabbath day. There are some things Catholics do not wish to “remember.” But that is their authority, not God’s.

you totally missed it.

SIZE=“4”]Listen, every time in scripture that Jesus’ disciples think he is being literal, but he is only being figurative, he explains himself.

here is an example. John 3:3-9

3In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.[a]”

4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!”

5Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit** gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

9"How can this be?" Nicodemus asked…**

****As you can see Protestant 101, they thought Jesus was being literal and he was only being figurative. Jesus then explains Himself. This is the first example of Jesus explaining himself when they think he is speaking literally, but he is only speaking figuratively, and then he explains himself.

Every time he is being literal and they think he is being fiigurative, he repeats himself. every time.

Here is an example Matthew 9:1-8

1Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.”
3At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!”

4Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” 7And the man got up and went home. 8When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.

You see Protestant 101, jesus repeats himself more thoroughly, and reiterates that he has the power to forgive sin, just as he originally stated and they tried to accuse him of blaspheming and imply that he cannot forgive sin because they know that only God can forgive sins. But Jesus repeats himself more literally.

And the other verses that show this exact thing occurring have been given to you in my previous post. To not read them and discuss them would be propogandism. So are you a propogandist, or a true skeptic, able to discuss these matters and study these scriptures protestant 101? I guess we will soon see.


.