My challenge to Protestants

  • Thread starter Thread starter RomanCrusader
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RomanCrusader

Guest
Our Protestant friends seem convinced that the words “This is my body” and “This is my blood” are symbolic and that every reference to Christ body and blood is symbolic. Despite the fact that there is no scriptoral evidence showing Christ’s body and blood to be symbolic, they insist that they are. They call it a metaphor and such.

In that case the Ressurection could very well be “symbolic” too. After all, the Ressurection could just be a giant parable symbolizing Christs teaching living on in the hearts of people everywhere, therefore figuratively bring Christ back to life. His appearance to the disciples could be them symolically recalling His teachings and preaching them to the world.

Now of course the Glorious Ressurection was literal in all means. To deny the Ressurection is to deny God. However if one doubts the literal sense of the Last Supper, than one could very well use their same logic to deny the Glorious Ressurection.
 
However if one doubts the literal sense of the Last Supper, than one could very well use their same logic to deny the Glorious Ressurection.
Click to expand...
Or the Incarnation or the Virgin Birth or any other teaching handed on to us by the Apostles and their successors, which is why there are so many Protestant denominations and sects, as well as non-Christian sects, such as the JW’s, Mormons, Oneness, etc.
 
I admit upfront that I am not so well educated on Reformation ideas and Protestanism in general (though the study of it does have its fruits, at least for me), but with that being said I believe the turn to saying that “body and blood” are merely symbols as opposite to a literal, real experience are a misunderstanding of what it means to injest the body and blood. Many anti-Christians and the like accuse Christianity of cannibalism, however we do not believe that we are eating dead flesh, or dead blood, but LIVING body and blood. The first time I heard that distinction it did not sink in, but when it did…well, it completely blew my mind. It is out of our realm to understand how this occurs – however, we believe that it does. On a side note, the heavy rationale-based understanding of God we find in Protestanism is, in my opinion, a continuation of what was started in the West. We find in Protestanism no room for mystery.
 
Della said:
Or the Incarnation or the Virgin Birth or any other teaching handed on to us by the Apostles and their successors, which is why there are so many Protestant denominations and sects, as well as non-Christian sects, such as the JW’s, Mormons, Oneness, etc.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The Virgin Birth could just imply that Christ was a pure and moral human being. So pure that his mother could be compared to a virgin. But of course not literally a virgin.

This is of course nonsense.

Excellent point the OP made.
 
RomanCrusader said:
Our Protestant friends seem convinced that the words “This is my body” and “This is my blood” are symbolic and that every reference to Christ body and blood is symbolic. Despite the fact that there is no scriptoral evidence showing Christ’s body and blood to be symbolic, they insist that they are. They call it a metaphor and such.

In that case the Ressurection could very well be “symbolic” too. After all, the Ressurection could just be a giant parable symbolizing Christs teaching living on in the hearts of people everywhere, therefore figuratively bring Christ back to life. His appearance to the disciples could be them symolically recalling His teachings and preaching them to the world.

Now of course the Glorious Ressurection was literal in all means. To deny the Ressurection is to deny God. However if one doubts the literal sense of the Last Supper, than one could very well use their same logic to deny the Glorious Ressurection.
Click to expand...
Jesus could not go against the Word of God.It would be sin and we know that Jesus was sinless. God forbade the eating of flesh and blood.This proves that Jesus Words were spoken in a supernatural sense and not to be taken in a literal meaning.Jesus Words were spirit and they brought life to the believer.
 
IHS said:
Jesus could not go against the Word of God.It would be sin and we know that Jesus was sinless. God forbade the eating of flesh and blood.This proves that Jesus Words were spoken in a supernatural sense and not to be taken in a literal meaning.Jesus Words were spirit and they brought life to the believer.
Click to expand...
Could you provide some proof? I suppose your choices are limited to Scripture, but still…
 
RomanCrusader said:
Our Protestant friends seem convinced that the words “This is my body” and “This is my blood” are symbolic and that every reference to Christ body and blood is symbolic. Despite the fact that there is no scriptoral evidence showing Christ’s body and blood to be symbolic, they insist that they are. They call it a metaphor and such.

In that case the Ressurection could very well be “symbolic” too. After all, the Ressurection could just be a giant parable symbolizing Christs teaching living on in the hearts of people everywhere, therefore figuratively bring Christ back to life. His appearance to the disciples could be them symolically recalling His teachings and preaching them to the world.

Now of course the Glorious Ressurection was literal in all means. To deny the Ressurection is to deny God. However if one doubts the literal sense of the Last Supper, than one could very well use their same logic to deny the Glorious Ressurection.
Click to expand...
This is one of those situations in which I see two fallacies: one is that all Protestants believe the same thing, and the second is that if it’s not the Catholic thing, then it must be symbolic. Many Protestants believe the Eucharist is more than symbolic but do not go as far as the Catholics do in terms of Real; Protestants do admit, sometimes, that Jesus somehow is really present with or under the elements, but generally deny it is really His flesh and blood present.

There are of course those Protestants who maintain that it is purely symbolic. Protestants can be found who take almost any conceivable theological position, as well as many positons that are simply inconceivable until you find out they believe THAT??.
 
I read somewhere once that the Greek words for the phrases, “This is my body, this is my blood” could be interpreted to be either literal or symbolic, either way, so on those phrases alone, the Protestant interpretation is not necessarily incorrect.

The stumbling block for the Protestant belief is in John 6 where Jesus says, “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you do not have life within you.” The Greek word used in this passage for “to eat”, when translated literally, means “to gnaw”. I have yet to find a Protestant Biblical scholar with training in Greek who can explain to me how you can symbolically “gnaw” on something. :confused:

That said, I wonder if that is often the reason they conveniently ignore that part of John 6 for the most part.

I had also read somewhere that the “symbolic” argument was flawed because Jesus presents the theory of the Eucharist being literally his body and blood in the same light as his crucifixion and resurrection was presented. Essentially, if you interpret one as literal, you must interpret both as literal.

Finally, there is also the verse in Zechariah that is unexplainable from a Protestant perspective. Zech. 14: 20,21 states, " On that day…all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them." Protestants believe that Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection wipe out any need for further sacrifice, but how is that possible when these verses in Zechariah, by even the admission of the Evangelicals, clearly refer to events to come in the Kingdom that Christ was to come to establish? If Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection were the final sacrifices, why the need for the sacrifices referenced in Zechariah? This is yet one more question that the Protestant faith cannot answer, yet one more instance where the truth they hold is incomplete.
 
Truthstalker said:
This is one of those situations in which I see two fallacies: one is that all Protestants believe the same thing, and the second is that if it’s not the Catholic thing, then it must be symbolic. Many Protestants believe the Eucharist is more than symbolic but do not go as far as the Catholics do in terms of Real; Protestants do admit, sometimes, that Jesus somehow is really present with or under the elements, but generally deny it is really His flesh and blood present.

There are of course those Protestants who maintain that it is purely symbolic. Protestants can be found who take almost any conceivable theological position, as well as many positons that are simply inconceivable until you find out they believe THAT??.
Click to expand...
But without the authority of Apostolic succession, there is no Real Presence. If you don’t have to be an ordained priest to be the instrument through which Christ transforms the elements, that means I could go get a hamburger bun out of my pantry and some wine cooler and have the Body and Blood of the Resurrected Lord right here in my kitchen. Doesn’t sound right to me.
 
IHS said:
(Lev,17;10)
Click to expand...
This speaks solely to eating the flesh of a dead person. Jesus is not dead! Jesus perpetually offers His glorified body in Heaven for the many.

Not to mention, supernatural is not contradictory to literal. For instance, Jesus was conceived by a virgin. This is a supernatural event that actually happened. To equate supernatural or spiritual with symbolic is incorrect.
 
DesertBrother said:
But without the authority of Apostolic succession, there is no Real Presence why?. If you don’t have to be an ordained priest to be the instrument through which Christ transforms the elements, that means I could go get a hamburger bun out of my pantry and some wine cooler and have the Body and Blood of the Resurrected Lord right here in my kitchen you are assuming that God does not use anyone else. Simply because you are not an ordained minister does not mean God might not choose to use someone else, ordination being a recognition of God’s calling rather than an individual’s presumption, or at least it should be. Doesn’t sound right to meI hope that this isn’t your test for whether things are right. Many things are right that don’t “seem right”. God never seems to ask my opinion of what is right, for example - He does a lot of things without my permission.:eek: .
Click to expand...
 
This speaks solely to eating the flesh of a dead person. Jesus is not dead! Jesus perpetually offers His glorified body in Heaven for the many. Notice he talks about “draining the blood.” He is speaking of dead creatures.

Not to mention, supernatural is not contradictory to literal. For instance, Jesus was conceived by a virgin. This is a supernatural event that actually happened. To equate supernatural or spiritual with symbolic is incorrect.
 
John 6:40 “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

John 6:54 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

What must one do to be raised by the Lord on the last day?

John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.”

Do Christians no longer get hungry or thirsty? Clearly a metaphor in this verse.
 
40.png
Truthstalker:
But without the authority of Apostolic succession, there is no Real Presence why?. If you don’t have to be an ordained priest to be the instrument through which Christ transforms the elements, that means I could go get a hamburger bun out of my pantry and some wine cooler and have the Body and Blood of the Resurrected Lord right here in my kitchen you are assuming that God does not use anyone else. Simply because you are not an ordained minister does not mean God might not choose to use someone else, ordination being a recognition of God’s calling rather than an individual’s presumption, or at least it should be. Doesn’t sound right to meI hope that this isn’t your test for whether things are right. Many things are right that don’t “seem right”. God never seems to ask my opinion of what is right, for example - He does a lot of things without my permission. .
 
What is the purpose of this thread?

The initial sentences contain generalizations that are not accurate as broadly stated. Non Roman Catholic Christians are put off by inaccurate generalizations that some catholics make. I assure you that it doesn’t draw anyone closer. Likewise catholics don’t like it when those that don’t know make inaccurate statements.

Fred
 
Regarding “cannibalism”. The lower form of life (us) is subsumed by the higher form of life (Christ). So in a sense, isn’t Christ eating us, and not vice versa?
 
40.png
Truthstalker:
Truthstalker (great name),
I’m sure you weren’t actually taking me literally with the hamburger bun example! Why do I assume God can’t use other people? Because I don’t presume to know anything that hasn’t been handed down to me through ancient Tradition. I submit myself to its authority so I don’t have to figure all these complicated things out for myself. That was something the Lord never expected of His faithful, because he knew how stupid we all were! We were never supposed to have to “guess” which Church was true. This whole situation has happened because of the sins of men on both sides of the Reformation crisis.
The Eucharist was one of seven sacraments in use by both Catholic and Orthodox for 1500 years. Both provided by Apostolic succession, not by someone who simply had a hunch God was telling him to consecrate bread and wine. Ordination is not simply a recognition of God’s calling. It is the transfer of Grace through the laying on of hands by the Bishop who is an Apostolic successor. It makes the priest an instrument through which Christ operates in all the sacraments, regardless of the holiness of the priest himself. If you believe in the Real Presence of Christ, you are just millimeters away from the whole Truth. Submit yourself in obedience to the Church and take the burden off your own judgement of God’s ancient mysteries! Come home brother!👋
 
IHS said:
(Lev,17;10)
Click to expand...
How many Early Church Fathers can you cite who will claim that this verse proves that the Eucharist is symbolic only? Given what a slam-dunk it seems to be, the list must surely be long.

BTW, what other OT laws are we bound by? All of them? If not, how do you choose to obey some and ignore others?

Catholics understand that the Incarnation changed everything. Before the Incarnation there was no such thing as divine blood, but afterwards there was such a thing. Why the prohibition against blood? Because the life is in the blood. But is this not why Christ became Incarnate? Did He not come to give us eternal life, the life of God?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top