Protestant interpretation of the real presence

[wisdomseeker]

Obviously there are people who do not believe what One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church teaches , so…they are not of the Church?

Who is more likely to believe in the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, or the Deity of Christ: A Catholic or Protestant?

Eighty-five percent (85%) of Catholics believe Jesus rose from the dead along with 86% of Protestants and 97% of Evangelical Christians.

Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Catholics also think Jesus was the son of God. That view is shared by 90% of Protestants and 97% of Evangelical Christians.

Finally, 87% of Catholics, 95% of Protestants and all Evangelical Christians surveyed believe that Jesus Christ walked the earth.

rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/holidays/april_2009/79_believe_jesus_christ_rose_from_the_dead

The pollsters reported that:
“Despite** the Roman Catholic Church’s historical emphasis on the theological importance of Mary, Catholics in the poll were somewhat less likely than Protestants to believe in the virgin birth. Theologians attributed this to the doctrine in many Protestant churches that the Bible must be accepted as literal truth**.”

read it again it case you missed it.

religioustolerance.org/virgin_b7.htm

from a conservative Catholic April 2009

" Church-going Catholics are far more likely that Church-going non-Catholics (almost all Protestant) to accept immoral behavior.
I do not find this surprising. Other polls I have seen over the years reveal similar patterns.
Why?
The failure of catechesis over the past two generations is one of the principal reasons. Making felt banners does not help produce a reverence for God and the moral law. Catechesis may have improved in the schools, but fewer Catholic children are going to Catholics schools or to religious education classes. Instead they are picking up their attitudes from their poorly-catechized parents, among whom are prominent politicians.
But this still does not fully explain the difference. Why are Church-going Protestants better able to resist accepting prevalent secular attitudes to morality? Catholics once submitted to the teaching authority of the Church; many Catholics, even those who regularly attend church, have clearly rejected that, and have nothing to replace it except the standards of American society. Perhaps Protestantism, built upon a veneration of the Bible, has been better able to resist the moral acids of secularism. Catholics claim that the living authority of the magisterium is better able to meet moral challenges, but this does not in fact seem to be the case. Roma locuta est, but very few Catholics are listening.B] When the Bible speaks, (and it does speak clearly on many issues) many Protestants listen.

-lee podles

podles.org/dialogue/183-183.htm

In EVERY survey or poll a protestant is more like to believe in a Biblical truth than a Catholic
look at table 2 here at

harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=982

Doctrines of the CC.

how is your article a prove that the CC is not One True Church?

can you telll me that the Jews are not the people of God? because they rebelled against God many many times, to the point of worshipping other gods.

can you tell me that David appointed by God, who commited murder was abandoned by God?

"For I am the least of the Apostles, and am not worthy to be called an Apostle because I persecuted the CHURCH OF GOD."
1Cor 15:9

 

[RedBert]

Doctrines of the CC.

how is your article a prove that the CC is not One True Church?

can you telll me that the Jews are not the people of God? because they rebelled against God many many times, to the point of worshipping other gods.

can you tell me that David appointed by God, who commited murder was abandoned by God?

You really struggle on context :

in CONTEXT; did you not say that" if you dont believe what she teaches, you cannot be in the Church., the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. "?

I just showed you that Protestants are more likely to believe in the ESSENTIAL Bible truths than a Catholic…

The CONTEXT of my comments and the Jews and their Scriptures was to dispute your claim that God would not give his infallible Word without an infallible interpreter.

Thats right, God did and does give us the responsiblity to search for his Truth
Test ALL things in Scipture.

The CONTEXT of John 6 is BELIEF in Christ is the eating of his Flesh and Drinking of his blood

47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,

SAME result ! Which verse is literal and which is figurative?

 

[ncgolf]

I just showed you that Protestants are more likely to believe in the ESSENTIAL Bible truths than a Catholic…

So Protestants are more likely to believe in a non-biblical concept??

All this tells me is Protestants believe in some made up non-biblical concept.

Thats right, God did and does give us the responsiblity to search for his Truth
Test ALL things in Scipture.

And the test reveals Jesus is speaking literally in this passage. I tested this passage today, at Mass, and found it to be true.

So I ask what test is are you talking about? If something is a test … then something is compared against something else for validation … and there has to be a right answer.

The CONTEXT of John 6 is BELIEF in Christ is the eating of his Flesh and Drinking of his blood

That is not context … context relates to the situation and circumstances of the writing, place, time etc. Part of the context of John 6 is this John 6:4 “The feast of Passover was near.” The sacrifice of Passover is setting part of the context of Jesus’s words to follow. You cannot read anything else in John 6 without the Passover figuring prominently.

47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,

SAME result ! Which verse is literal and which is figurative?

You tell me … based on Passover context?

 

[RedBert]

So Protestants are more likely to believe in a non-biblical concept??

All this tells me is Protestants believe in some made up non-biblical concept.

Non Biblical? Wow!
The poll was on the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, or the Deity of Christ

That is not context … context relates to the situation and circumstances of the writing, place, time etc. Part of the context of John 6 is this John 6:4 “The feast of Passover was near.” The sacrifice of Passover is setting part of the context of Jesus’s words to follow. You cannot read anything else in John 6 without the Passover figuring prominently.

freedictionary.com defintion #1
con·text (kntkst)
n

1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a** particular word or passage and determines its meaning.**

back to the OP
I’ll ask again, is the part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning of “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,” literal or figurative?

Here are the clues:

How do you labor for the food that endures to eternal life? Believe in me! (v. 27, 29)
“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me [in faith] shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” (v. 35)
“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (v. 40)
“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.” (v. 47)

For Jesus eating is believing; drinking is believing. He promises eternal life to those who believe in him

47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,

SAME result ! Which verse is literal and which is figurative?

 

[RedBert]

Originally Posted by RedBert
Thats right, God did and does give us the responsiblity to search for his Truth
Test ALL things in Scipture.

And the test reveals Jesus is speaking literally in this passage. I tested this passage today, at Mass, and found it to be true.

So I ask what test is are you talking about? If something is a test … then something is compared against something else for validation … and there has to be a right answer.

Acts 17:11 “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”…

So tell me how did you test in SCRIPTURE whether “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.” is figurative or literal?

 

[O.S.Luke]

The Council of Trent did not formulate a new doctrine on the Eucharist; it simply gave a precise authentic declaration of that faith which had always been in the Catholic Church.

I didn’t say doctrine. I said dogma.

 

[ncgolf]

Non Biblical? Wow!
The poll was on the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, or the Deity of Christ

It’s a poll … when you capitlize ESSENTIAlL … you bring up a notion I have seen on these forums … like “We agree on the essentials.”

Maybe I missed it but what does a poll like this accomplish.

freedictionary.com defintion #1
con·text (kntkst)
n

1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a** particular word or passage and determines its meaning.**

back to the OP
I’ll ask again, is the part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning of “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,” literal or figurative?

Here are the clues:

How do you labor for the food that endures to eternal life? Believe in me! (v. 27, 29)
“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me [in faith] shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” (v. 35)
“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (v. 40)
“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.” (v. 47)

For Jesus eating is believing; drinking is believing. He promises eternal life to those who believe in him

47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,

SAME result ! Which verse is literal and which is figurative?

The underlying context of this passage is 1st century Judaism. What surrounds Scripture is Scripture so the words of John 6 can have their context found elsewhere in Scripture … it is not limited to only its near neighboring words.

Maybe it is a good idea to set the context of John 6 … this writing is written for Jews … so put yourself in John 6 as a 1st century Jew, not a modern day Christian … as those did not exist in way we understand Christians. You must be able to put yourself in the crowd as a faithful, knowledgeable Jew, knowing not of what is to come but yearning for the anointed one. John knows we must know about the Passover to be able to understand this so his writing brings to bear the Passover sacrifice.

In the beginning are 3 details that are important … 1. John writes the time of Passover is nearing in John 6:4 and 2. Jesus walks across the water in John 6:21 and 3. Jesus went up the mountain in 6:

These 2 details would not have been overlooked by Jews at the time. They speak of Passover and of the Exodus and of Moses … reminding them of their deliverance from captivity and the circumstances in which this happened. Already one must begin to think what did the Passover do for the Jews … it delivered them from captivity. Eating is part of the delivery process. Jesus’s sacrifice is also a delivery … from sin. Jesus’s command to eat His flesh for it evokes the imagery of eating the Passover sacrificial lamb … but this is a man who makes this command to eat His flesh and this is confusing. They would have known the Passover sacrifice had to be eaten … if you don’t believe me go back and read the Passover passages in Exodus.

John, IMO, wants to evoke the imagery necessary to tie Jesus to the Passover … to the sacrifice that Passover is … John wants his audience to see this connection. Eventually the early Jewish Christians saw this and made this connection. Jesus had to make this know before his death even though it was confusing, scandalous and seemingly unbelievable.

This imagery ties the Passion and death of Jesus to the Passover sacrifice … reminding us of John the Baptist’s claim …“Behold the Lamb of God” and even to Revelation 5:6 image of a “Lamb that seemed to be slain.”

Go back and read the Passover passages in Exodus … re-read Jesus’s words in the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper … both have commands … to eat the fruits of the sacrifice and commands to keep doing this.

God says in Exodus 12:24 “You shall observe this as a perpetual ordinance for yourselves and your descendents.” Jesus in Luke 22:19, “Do this in memory of me.”

Reading John 6 standalone does not work … reading John 6 with the Last Supper accounts doesn’t work … but reading John 6, the Last Supper accounts and understanding the Passover … ties this together making the case for Jesus meaning what He said about the eating of His body much more understandable for we can see in the Jewish context of sacrifice.

 

[ncgolf]

So tell me how did you test in SCRIPTURE whether “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.” is figurative or literal?

Is it consistent with Scripture … has the consumption of a sacrifice been used before? Yes

Can the literal meaning of eating Jesus’s flesh be understood given a Scriptual understanding of sacrifice? Yes

Are there other references to a literal understanding avaliable within Scripture? Yes

If it is literal can Jesus do this … is it consistent with the divine nature of Jesus? Yes

I imagine there are many others but I offer just a few.

 

[ncgolf]

Here are the clues:

How do you labor for the food that endures to eternal life? Believe in me! (v. 27, 29)
“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me [in faith] shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” (v. 35)
“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (v. 40)
“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.” (v. 47)

For Jesus eating is believing; drinking is believing. He promises eternal life to those who believe in him

47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,

You left out the 3 times where Jesus says you must eat his flesh and drink his blood, John 6:53-56.

Which verse is literal and which is figurative?

Couple of things with literal and figurative, if 1st century Jews were confused by this they would have left when He said He was a door or a vine, but I don’t recall seeing disciples leaving in droves then. They seemed to understand what figurative language was.

The statement by the crowd in John 6:52 “How can this man give us his flesh to eat” shows a mere figurative understanding was not shared by the crowd. Jesus meant what He said … but I will say this too is Jesus lets you choose as the offering in John 6:67 shows “Do you also want to leave?” This question by John is meant for us, today, … it is the question still relevant 2000 years after it was written and must be answered by each of us.

I don’t believe Peter and the others stayed because they understood … I can’t see how they could of given the timeframe this event occurs … they stayed in spite of not understanding … they stayed because of a total and absolute trust in Jesus. That is faith.

 

[PJM]

=excaliber;I am discusing the real presence with a non Catholic, and it is amazing
That people think bible interpretation is as simple as reading verses on a subject,
Then seeing what makes the most sence to us in 2010.

Without looking at Church history…or the culture of the time…and many times not looking at original languages.

For example I said John chapter 6 where Jesus speaks of his blood and flesh as food, is ment LITERAL.

The responce I got was that if you take that literal, you must take everything else Christ said literaly about Jesus bieng bread from heaven…and about him bieng a vine…and a shepard and a door etc…

Hard to explain this to someone that dose not trust the Church in her interpretation of scripture.

***Most shocking to me [no, I’m not niave, nor do I not understand why; nevertheless, I find it “shocking.”

The consistancy of non-Catholics taking Metaphorical passages litteraly and Literal pasages Metaphorically. It’s simply amazing how the mind and Will of God works!

In great part this is brought about by accepting only the segments they find conveinant to believe. And ignoring all others including 2 Tim. 3:16 which clearly and concisely advises them NOT to do that! Absolutely amazing.**

Eph. 2:19 “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [singular] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [singular] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

Mt. 16:19 ALSO SINGULAR! when there was ONLY the Catholic Church, and no other! “I [Jesus] will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

2 Tim. 4: 1”I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. 3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.”

**2 Peter 2: **1 “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words; from of old their condemnation has not been idle, and their destruction has not been asleep.”

**2 Cor. 4: 2 **“We have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing.

If Jesus did not mean precisely what He say’s in John six, why do all four Gospels and 1 Cor. say it’s FACT? [Mt.26:26-28, Mk. 14:22-24, Lk. 2219-21]!

***If Jesus did not mean it litteraly why does He use the expresion "TRULY TRULY"twice; v. 47 and v. 53? And then say v.55 “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.”?

If Jesus did not mean litteraly what He said; when his deciples left him for saying it; He did not call them back. He turned to he Apostles and asked “do you want to leave me too?” v. 66-67?***

***If Jesus did not mean this literally why did Paul [1 Cor. 11: 27-29] preach that those who “ate and drank” the “Bread and Wine of Life” unworthily would CONDEM themselves to hell!? Certainly eating a ordinary meal of bread and wine would not condem one to hell!

If the words of Chrsit were not Litteral why has Eucarist been practiced consistantly and continually for 2000 years in the CC?***

And if the words are not Literal and understood to be literal why would 12 Apostles [Paul included] as Martyrs?

Oh ye of NO FAITH, and little understanding! May God have Mercy on you and enlighten you!

***Properly understood Jesus too is “the vine, the door and the sheperd.”
The vine: as we are all attached to Him,

The door; he is the only way which he choose to pass on to Peter an the CC.

He is the Sheperd as is Peter***: Jn. 21:15-17 "When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him , “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep. "

Sincerly with Love and prayers,

Pat**

 

[wisdomseeker]

Originally Posted by RedBert
Thats right, God did and does give us the responsiblity to search for his Truth
Test ALL things in Scipture.

Acts 17:11 “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”…

So tell me how did you test in SCRIPTURE whether “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.” is figurative or literal?

So, tell me, are you trying to imitate this passage?

are you trying to use this passage of the Bible as if it was written to you. tell me do you have any authority whatsoever to enterpret Scriptures correctly and to test and determine if the CC is speaking the Truth? are you a Jew? was the Word of God given to you or to the Jews? do you know the difference between you and the Jews?

** “A Christian man is Catholic while he lives in the body; cut off, he is made a heretic; the Spirit does not follow an amputated member.”
Saint Augustine… **

 

[RedBert]

So, tell me, are you trying to imitate this passage?

are you trying to use this passage of the Bible as if it was written to you. tell me do you have any authority whatsoever to enterpret Scriptures correctly and to test and determine if the CC is speaking the Truth? are you a Jew? was the Word of God given to you or to the Jews? do you know the difference between you and the Jews?

???