Protestants:Doesn't the Bible support the true presense?

[Realcatholicgk]

This is true, but the passages in question refer to brothers and sisters of Jesus; on the other hand, they refer to Elizabeth as (depending on translation) either “relative” or “cousin”.

**Hi Hajnal, and Cine,

May I remind both of you, this thread is about the TRUE PRESENCE of Jesus? You are more than welcome to make one about Jesus’ relatives if you want. If so, please invite me! Being born and raised in Phildelphila Penna I know all about that!
Confused? The Greek word used in the New Testament for His “Brothers and Sisters” * is always the word *áäåëöüó (adelphos) or the plural, (adelphoi) which In English normally translate to = “brethern/brothers”. If there were women there the word would still be áäåëöüó and could be translater as brothers and sisters! What the phases say is that Jesus’ brethern are outside!
We even use this word in English…the best known is concerning the city Philadelphia (philos = love adelphos = brother…thus the nickname of my home “city of brotherly love”. Yes, I have heard all the “gay” jokes. Thank you very much!

Hajnalcsillag, My friend please educate yourself better. I am embarrassed for your obvious ignorance. How can you expect to be taken seriously when you say foolish things? We both know that you certainly aren’t a fool and you seem to be much smarter than me so please do some reading and learn what you are talking about! I can’t keep defending you against yourself!

God Bless**

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Hello I didn’t know what SDA ment so I went to your site and I’m glad I sent them away from my door 3 times already,besides I dont beleive in soul sleep Nancy Thank You:thumbsup: or abortion!

Hi, I’m glad you found the link helpful. I was a Seventh-day Adventist, studied to be a minister in that church, received a BA in Theology from a SDA college in 1982. I will be confirmed in the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church this Easter. What happened in my life between 1982 and today is a long story. I’ve posted about it in other threads on this forum. There are other former SDAs who converted to Catholicism in this Forum. There aren’t many of us, which is understandable if you understand the SDA teachings and their views on Catholicism. But I pray daily that God will lead as many SDAs as possible to reconcile with God’s One True Church…for all of His sheep to come out of Babylon and return to the safety of His One True Fold.

The SDA church views on abortion was the major catalyst in my re-evaluation of SDA beliefs in general.

Anti-Catholicism is one of their biggest points in their very active and agressive evangelism and conversion processes. Catholics should be aware. I will do what I can to help them become aware.

But I do not want to derail this thread, so I will say, that it was coming to understand the Real Presence of Jesus in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, that led me to choose to convert to Catholicism. I look forward to receiving Jesus fully this Easter and having a complete relationship with Him!!!

God is good and His mercy endures forever!!!

God bless all!!!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Realcatholicgk,

I guess I don’t get out much… Thank you for the explanation on Protestant101 - I really did spend some time wondering how anyone could be threatened by ‘clarity’ - much less, ‘charity’… now, you know, that is truly a sad way to be.

Have a great day … and, I will try to get out a little more…

God bless

 

[Protestant101]

Hi, I’m glad you found the link helpful. I was a Seventh-day Adventist, studied to be a minister in that church, received a BA in Theology from a SDA college in 1982. I will be confirmed in the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church this Easter. What happened in my life between 1982 and today is a long story. I’ve posted about it in other threads on this forum. There are other former SDAs who converted to Catholicism in this Forum. There aren’t many of us, which is understandable if you understand the SDA teachings and their views on Catholicism. But I pray daily that God will lead as many SDAs as possible to reconcile with God’s One True Church…for all of His sheep to come out of Babylon and return to the safety of His One True Fold.

The SDA church views on abortion was the major catalyst in my re-evaluation of SDA beliefs in general.

Anti-Catholicism is one of their biggest points in their very active and agressive evangelism and conversion processes. Catholics should be aware. I will do what I can to help them become aware.

But I do not want to derail this thread, so I will say, that it was coming to understand the Real Presence of Jesus in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, that led me to choose to convert to Catholicism. I look forward to receiving Jesus fully this Easter and having a complete relationship with Him!!!

God is good and His mercy endures forever!!!

God bless all!!!

Probably because you never did correctly understand our official teaching on abortion, you tend to distort it as you have, in a number of threads here; but I will save that for the appropriate topic.

When a person leaves Catholicism and comes into the Adventist Church; they understand the truth of the real presence; and how we do not in fact eat the literal flesh of Jesus. Many people are leaving the Catholic Church in recognition that they ignore the many scriptures which explain why the use of “flesh” in Jo. 6 is indeed symbolic of His Word, which is the spiritual “food” of todays Christian.

Heb 5:12 For indeed because of the time, you ought to be teachers, you have need that one teach you again what are the first principles of the oracles of God. And you have become in need of milk, and not of solid food.
Heb 5:13 For everyone partaking of milk is unskillful in the Word of Righteousness, for he is an infant.
Heb 5:14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, even those who because of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (MKJV)

No matter which version is used; it is easy to see how The Word of God, is equated to “food,” even being called “meat” or “milk” in the passage under consideration. Catholics who try to defend the doctrine of their Mass, saying that in Jo.6:51-55 the word “flesh” is used literally to mean the actual flesh of Jesus totally reject any other use of the word flesh here in John 6, even when shown clear Bible passages which show the use of “flesh” in John 6 is symbolic. How can our “spiritual food,” our eternal life, be obtained by eating the literal flesh of anything? Ignoring Calvary, and pointing to Old Testament rituals of temple priests who ate a portion of their sacrifices; Catholics staunchly defend their rigid dogma of literally eating Christ’s flesh.

 

[jean8]

Hi Jean8,

I have to look all these items up - can’t keep a thing in my head!

When I say it, I recalled it immediately… and, since this a particularly descriptive presentation from St. Paul… well…I thought I’d just print out the verse so we all could be bless by this Word of God.

**23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
28
A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
30
That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.
31
If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment;
32
but since we are judged by (the) Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
33
Therefore, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
34
If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that your meetings may not result in judgment. The other matters I shall set in order when I come. **

What has honestly amazed me with Protestants in this area - is that they are so eager to quote St. Paul - like somehow he had something different to say about the Eucharist then John 6 or the Synoptics on the Last Supper. But, I have not heard any of them really jumping into 1Cor - except to say: “It doesn’t mean that!”

I certainly hope some interested Protestant folks come by and share their thoughts on this.

God bless

Are you quoting scripture?
lcms teaches the Real Presence. 1Cor.11:23-26

God bless,
jean8

 

[Protestant101]

Hi, Realcatholicgk,

I guess I don’t get out much… Thank you for the explanation on Protestant101 - I really did spend some time wondering how anyone could be threatened by ‘clarity’ - much less, ‘charity’… now, you know, that is truly a sad way to be.

Have a great day … and, I will try to get out a little more…

God bless

Don’t worry, if I am “threatened” by anything I will let y’all know. LOL, the time you spent “wondering” about that was likely wasted.

 

[Protestant101]

by RealCatholicgkYou don’t get out much do you? Protestant101 has even abandoned Threads he started himself! I am not sure, however, i think his cult may prohibit him from defend against things without seeing what Ellen G. White, the prophetess of Seventh Day Adventism wrote about the subject. Now in his defense Ellen G White made a career of blatant plagiarism authoring over 90 books.
I know the SDA wrote two bibles of their own. I wonder it they have 90 books in them? Protestant101 and other SDAs will lthrow Ellen G White over to the side while quoating her. Denying your prophet is a strange practice for any group even cults. But I have to respect their practices.
You can use charity just remember Protestant101 can’t even spell it!

And I thought you admonished in post #159 that this thread was about “the real presence of Jesus?”

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Probably because you never did correctly understand our official teaching on abortion, you tend to distort it as you have, in a number of threads here; but I will save that for the appropriate topic.

I understand perfectly the official teaching on abortion by the Seventh-day Adventist church. I have distorted nothing. Their official statement and documents speak for themselves. They are not pro-life in their content nor their intent.

adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main_guide1.html (Take note of Paragraph 4)

Your position regarding abortion is getting close to the truth, but with one foot in the world, it is difficult to step completely into Heaven.

That appropriate topic is already linked to above in one of my posts.

When a person leaves Catholicism and comes into the Adventist Church; they understand the truth of the real presence;

No, actually they do not "understand the truth of the real presence", they have abandoned the Truth of the Real Presence.

No matter which version is used; it is easy to see how The Word of God, is equated to “food,” even being called “meat” or “milk” in the passage under consideration. Catholics who try to defend the doctrine of their Mass, saying that in Jo.6:51-55 the word “flesh” is used literally to mean the actual flesh of Jesus totally reject any other use of the word flesh here in John 6, even when shown clear Bible passages which show the use of “flesh” in John 6 is symbolic. How can our “spiritual food,” our eternal life, be obtained by eating the literal flesh of anything? Ignoring Calvary, and pointing to Old Testament rituals of temple priests who ate a portion of their sacrifices; Catholics staunchly defend their rigid dogma of literally eating Christ’s flesh.

Your reference to Hebrews 5 is Paul telling those folks that they do not understand the teaching that Jesus is the High Priest…

Read the Chapter in context. Paul is not talking about the Lord’s Supper here. Paul is telling them in the verses you quote that they should be able to be teachers of The Word by that point in time, but instead they need to be taught again from the beginning about Christian principles and beliefs.

Paul is talking about their level of maturity in regards to their level of understanding of the scriptures, Christian principles, and Christian beliefs.

And the reason Paul is saying this to them is found in Hebrews 5:11, which you did not include in your quote:

Heb. 5:11 11We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn.

Paul is not talking about the Lord’s Supper here. But when the scriptures have been cited on this thread (and the myriad of others where we have discussed this topic) where Paul is talking about the Lord’s Supper, you have been noticably silent.

And Paul making referrences to milk and meat as levels of maturity is not the same as Jesus saying that His flesh is true food and His blood is true drink, nor is it equivalent to Jesus saying that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood we will not enter eternal life.

God bless all!!!

 

[Protestant101]

No, actually they do not "understand the truth of the real presence", they have abandoned the Truth of the Real Presence.

Your reference to Hebrews 5 is Paul telling those folks that they do not understand the teaching that Jesus is the High Priest…

Read the Chapter in context. Paul is not talking about the Lord’s Supper here. Paul is telling them in the verses you quote that they should be able to be teachers of The Word by that point in time, but instead they need to be taught again from the beginning about Christian principles and beliefs.

Paul is talking about their level of maturity in regards to their level of understanding of the scriptures, Christian principles, and Christian beliefs.

And the reason Paul is saying this to them is found in Hebrews 5:11, which you did not include in your quote:

Heb. 5:11 11We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn.

Paul is not talking about the Lord’s Supper here. But when the scriptures have been cited on this thread (and the myriad of others where we have discussed this topic) where Paul is talking about the Lord’s Supper, you have been noticably silent.

And Paul making referrences to milk and meat as levels of maturity is not the same as Jesus saying that His flesh is true food and His blood is true drink, nor is it equivalent to Jesus saying that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood we will not enter eternal life.

God bless all!!!

Patrick; read my post in context and get back to me again. I did not say that Hebrews 5 was talking about the Lord’s supper.

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Patrick; read my post in context and get back to me again. I did not say that Hebrews 5 was talking about the Lord’s supper.

Hi Protestant101,

No, you did not say that Hebrews 5 was talking about the Lord’s Supper. I went and re-read your post. I understand, and please correct me if I am wrong, you are making the point that Paul is referring to the Scriptures as milk and meat.

You said:

No matter which version is used; it is easy to see how The Word of God, is equated to “food,” even being called “meat” or “milk” in the passage under consideration.

I don’t see where the "Word of God, is equated to food" In the verse you quote below. I see a distinction in levels of maturity as I said in my previous post, and Paul says that those who are immature, those ***“partaking of milk”, ***are “unskillful in the Word of Righteousness”. But I don’t see him equating those two, but describing skill and maturity levels.

***Heb 5:12 For indeed because of the time, you ought to be teachers, you have need that one teach you again what are the first principles of the oracles of God. And you have become in need of milk, and not of solid food.
Heb 5:13 For everyone partaking of milk is unskillful in the Word of Righteousness, for he is an infant.
Heb 5:14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, even those who because of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (MKJV) ***

When a person leaves Catholicism and comes into the Adventist Church; they understand the truth of the real presence; and how we do not in fact eat the literal flesh of Jesus. Many people are leaving the Catholic Church in recognition that they ignore the many scriptures which explain why the use of “flesh” in Jo. 6 is indeed symbolic of His Word, which is the spiritual “food” of todays Christian.

Catholics who try to defend the doctrine of their Mass, saying that in Jo.6:51-55 the word “flesh” is used literally to mean the actual flesh of Jesus totally reject any other use of the word flesh here in John 6, even when shown clear Bible passages which show the use of “flesh” in John 6 is symbolic.

But here is where you tie in The Lord’s Supper with the point you are making above. The Real Presence occurs at the celebration, the rememberance, of the Lord’s Supper at every Mass.

The scriptures you cite in Hebrews 5 do not explain symbolism in John 6. These are two seperate subjects being discussed by Paul, and by Jesus respectively.

Jesus teachings in John 6 are explained by Jesus at the Lord’s Supper and all scriptures which teach about communion and the Lord’s Supper; as well as all scriptures related to the Passover which is mentioned at the beginning of John 6; as well as all the scriptures related to the Bread of Heaven, the Manna which God provided to His people in the desert, about which Jesus said that He is that true bread sent down from Heaven in John 6:30-40.

These are the scriptures we need to search and study, with fervent prayer, to understand the Real Presence.

How can our “spiritual food,” our eternal life, be obtained by eating the literal flesh of anything? Ignoring Calvary, and pointing to Old Testament rituals of temple priests who ate a portion of their sacrifices; Catholics staunchly defend their rigid dogma of literally eating Christ’s flesh.

Our “spiritual food” which gives us eternal life, indeed, cannot be obtained by eating the literal flesh of “anything”.

Our spiritual food which gives us Eternal Life can ONLY be received by eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking Jesus’ blood…which He Himself said are TRUE food and TRUE drink because JESUS IS THE TRUE WORD OF GOD MADE FLESH.

The Word of God contained in the inspired Holy Scriptures lead us to a better understanding and relationship with THE TRUE WORD OF GOD…JESUS CHRIST.

And please make no mistake about it…Communion, The Lord’s Supper, The Eucharist (which means Blessing), the eating of Jesus’ flesh and the drinking of Jesus’ blood…The Crucified, The Risen, The Living Saviour and Most High God and High Priest is not at all ignoring Calvary.

IT IS ALL ABOUT CALVARY!!!

God bless all!!!

 

[Protestant101]

Our “spiritual food” which gives us eternal life, indeed, cannot be obtained by eating the literal flesh of “anything”.

Our spiritual food which gives us Eternal Life can ONLY be received by eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking Jesus’ blood…which He Himself said are TRUE food and TRUE drink because JESUS IS THE TRUE WORD OF GOD MADE FLESH.

The Word of God contained in the inspired Holy Scriptures lead us to a better understanding and relationship with THE TRUE WORD OF GOD…JESUS CHRIST.

And please make no mistake about it…Communion, The Lord’s Supper, The Eucharist (which means Blessing), the eating of Jesus’ flesh and the drinking of Jesus’ blood…The Crucified, The Risen, The Living Saviour and Most High God and High Priest is not at all ignoring Calvary.

IT IS ALL ABOUT CALVARY!!!

God bless all!!!

There are only three definitions of truth in the Bible: Jesus is the truth, His Word is the truth, and His law is the truth. (John 14:6, 17:17, Psalm 119:142). It has nothing to do with Calvary if you try to separate these, for the three are One.

 

[benedictus2]

The Ten commandments are Jesus’ commandments, and the Catholic Church advocates disobedience of these, when it fits with their doctrines.

Of course, you will find ways to “prove” how Adventists also “break the commandments” but that was not the original point, nor have I denied that fact. :bounce:

And how exactly do we advocate disobedience to the ten commandments.

Please, we want specifics here.

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

There are only three definitions of truth in the Bible: Jesus is the truth, His Word is the truth, and His law is the truth. (John 14:6, 17:17, Psalm 119:142).

And that’s the beauty of it!!!

The teachings of Jesus regarding His continued presence with us in celebrating The Lord’s Supper until He returns, Calvary, the truth of the written Word of God, Jesus The Word of God made flesh, and His law are not seperated.

It has nothing to do with Calvary if you try to separate these, for the three are One.

They are unified in God’s wonderful plan of salvation where The Father, and The Son, and The Holy Spirit…The True and Real “Three in One”… re-create us sinners into new creatures who as members of The Church, become in reality members of The Body of Jesus!!! And since Jesus is alive and will live for all eternity…so will we who become part of His Body.

And as part of His Body, we enter into unity with The Father, and The Son, and The Holy Spirit!!!

And death no longer has a claim on us, because we enter eternal life!!!

And OH how wonderful it is when we understand and believe that!!! There is no reason to ever despair because we have a greater hope and assurance than those who do not understand and believe!! The Gospel…The Good News!!! Tell everyone!!! Praise God!!!

God bless all!!!

 

[DLC]

Eating and drink in John 6 is a metphor for belief. No one is saved by partaking in communion. How come when Paul stated the gospel that he preached, in 1 cor. 15:1-4, he never mentions water baptism or even communion. Paul did say in chapter one that he can not to baptize but to preach the gospel.
If communion is needed for salvation Paul did not think it was, Eph 2:8-9
Eph 2:8-10
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
NASU

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Eating and drink in John 6 is a metphor for belief. No one is saved by partaking in communion. How come when Paul stated the gospel that he preached, in 1 cor. 15:1-4, he never mentions

How come he never mentioned those things in Romans 1:1:shrug:

Read below where he did mention those things!

water baptism or

Romans chapter 5
Romans chapter 6
Ephesians chapter 4
Colossians chapter 2

even communion.

Romans chapter 3
Romans chapter 5
Ephesians chapter 12
Colossians chapter 1
1 Corinthians chapter 10
1 Corinthians chapter 11
1 Corintians chapter 15

God bless all!!!

Paul did say in chapter one that he can not to baptize but to preach the gospel.
If communion is needed for salvation Paul did not think it was, Eph 2:8-9
Eph 2:8-10
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
NASU

 

[DLC]

In Romans 1:1 did Paul say he stating the gospel that he preached? NO. He just said that he was set apart for the gospel.
In Romans chapter 5
Romans chapter 6
Ephesians chapter 4
Colossians chapter 2

water baptism is no where to found.
Romans 5:1 tells us that we are justified by faith and then have peace with God. Romans 6 is refering the the baptism by the spirit, 1 cor. 12:13.
Eph 4 has no water baptism. Same with Colossians 2.

There is no Scripture that says communion is salvic, period. The goes for water bpatism.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, DLC,

This is an interesting concept - and one I would have a much easier time if…you could help me with just two things:

Eating and drink in John 6 is a metphor for belief. No one is saved by partaking in communion.

1.) Where else in the Old or New Testament did any group of listeners walk out on the speaker because of a metaphor? And, while you are thumbing throught the pages of your Catholic Bible that has had sections removed since the 16th Century… be sure to stop by…

2.) John 6:51-58. For your convenience, I have copied and pasted these verses, and they appear below:

**I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53
Jesus said to them, “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.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” **

Unless I misread Christ’s Words, “…parting in Communion…” is necessary for salvation. Now, if you do not believe - you really need to ask yourself where did Christ go wrong and mess up on this doctrine? Or, is it possible that me and my religion have it wrong?

I find it a true marvel that the words of St. Paul are used - not in an effort to glorify Christ as he wrote them - but, to refute Christ’s Own Words. Think about that as a concept: St.Paul vs Jesus… it should make anyone honestly wanting to follow Christ look at the group that is leading them. Are you moving toward the Words and actins that Jesus has given each of us to do - or away from them?

As you probably have guessed, I have answered this for myself - and the answer lies in the teaching’s of Christ’s Church - the Catholic Church.

God bless

 

[Always_For_Him]

There is another thread on this that has some beautiful explainations. I couldn’t possibly say it better than guanophore, broski234 or ncgolf.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=303024

I will copy a few of the posts over for you to read.

By guanophore:

I don’t think it is possible to grasp the import of the institution of the Eucharist without an understanding of the amanesis.

The Jewish tradition shared by Jesus and the Apostles had a far broader view of “remembrance” than our contemporary understanding. The Greek word translated as remembrance is amanesis (in Hebrew ZKR), a nearly sacred term in Judaism. American Protestants usually understand remembering to be a solitary act utilizing mental recall. The early Church understood remembering to be a far greater act, “…a corporate act in which the event remembered was experienced anew through ritual repetition.”6 This obviously places the primary emphasis of the Eucharist not on thought or contemplation, but on the corporate act of the Church; in the liturgy, “do this” is as important as “in remembrance of me.” The act of God through the Church was therefore a primary emphasis of the early Church.

If you think about the Passover, you will realize that the ritual surrounding it is very strict, and is intended for the rememberance to be participative, and brings those doing it into that which it commemorates. Each year they gathered according to the tradition, using certain prayers, assigned roles, and having prepared the spotless male lamb. They ate the lamb, and became present under the covered lintels. All this is a prefigurment of Eucharist, where we, through amanesis, become present at the foot of the cross. As often as we do this, He makes it real.

 

[Always_For_Him]

By broski234:
The word “remembrance” in Jesus’ time doesn’t mean the same as it does today. It means make present. So he is saying to make present his sacrifice, His pure sacrifice (Malachi 1:11). Catholics interpret the Bible, all of the Bible, in a “literal” manner. By that I mean that when we read a passage, we look for the meaning the writer of that passage intended to convey. For example, let’s take the phrase, “It was raining cats and dogs.” The literal meaning is that it was raining very hard. That’s the meaning the writer was trying to convey. Many fundamentalists, evangelicals, non-denominationalists, etc. interpret the Bible in a "literalist " manner. They would interpret the phrase, “It was raining cats and dogs,” if it was in the Bible, as some phenomenon where cats and dogs were falling from the sky like rain. So, you are correct, there are passages where folks are speaking literally, and there are passages where folks are speaking metaphorically and we need to determine which is which in order to properly understand the Scriptures. My question to you is: Why do you get to decide which is which? Why do you get to say that in John 6, Jesus was speaking metaphorically or symbolically, when I say he wasn’t? Is there no way to determine truth in this matter? Why does your opinion carry more weight than my opinion? Than the Church’s opinion? Than the opinion of billions of Catholics over 2000 years? Than the opinion of the early Christians and the Church Fathers?

So, what was the author of John 6 trying to tell us? Was Jesus speaking literally or metaphorically when He said to eat His body and drink His blood? Well, let’s look at the evidence. If Jesus was speaking symbolically, then please tell me what He meant by saying one must eat His body and drink His blood to have eternal life. A symbolic interpretation of these passages, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Plus, if Jesus was speaking symbolically, why did everyone who heard Him speak on that day, the Jews, His disciples…even the Apostles…take Him literally? Why do you, 2000 years after the fact, not take Him literally when everyone who heard him on that day did?

And, if Jesus was speaking symbolically, why did His disciples say it was a “hard teaching?” Do you have the “Lord’s Supper” in whatever church you now attend? If so, is symbolically eating Jesus’ body and symbolically drinking His blood by eating a piece of bread and drinking some grape juice…do you consider that a “hard teaching” as you are saying the disciples apparently did?

Plus, Jesus repeats Himself over and over here saying the same thing. Why didn’t He explain to His disciples that they misunderstood Him (if they did misunderstand Him)? Every other passage in Scripture (every one!) where the disciples don’t understand something He says, He takes them aside and explains it to them. But not here. Why? Because maybe they didn’t misunderstand Him?

And, very important to consider is this: in verse 51, Jesus says He is the “living bread which came down from heaven” and “if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.” Now, what exactly is this bread that folks must eat? Well, Jesus tells us in the last part of verse 51, “and the bread that I shall give for the life of the world is My FLESH.” Was He speaking symbolically here? When did Jesus give His flesh for the life of the world? On the cross, right? So, is Jesus speaking symbolically here in verse 51? Is He telling us to eat His symbolic flesh that He will give for the life of the world? If that’s your interpretation, then Jesus only gave His symbolic flesh for us on the cross, not His real flesh…according to your interpretation.

I could go on and on, but I think I’ve asked a bunch of questions that you are going to have a tough time answering in a consistent and logical manner. So, just from the Bible…forget about what Christians from the 1st century on have said…just from the Bible, there is ample evidence to show that Jesus was speaking literally in John 6 about eating His body and drinking His blood. Please give me the evidence, from the Bible, to show that He wasn’t speaking literally. With all due respect, your opinion, or the opinion of those who have taught you these things, doesn’t mean anything to me. I’m sorry, Catholic Daddy, but the biblical evidence for the Catholic belief on this point is overwhelming. Please read these passages carefully. I’m not asking you to take my opinion, I’m asking you to look carefully at the Word of God and not just gloss over it.

 

[Always_For_Him]

By ncgolf:

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 first century Jew, not a modern day Christian … as those did not exist in way we understand Christians. This was not written specifically for the Gentiles so at the time if a Gentile would have read this … he would not have understood John’s imagery as a devout Jew would.

In the beginning are 2 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.

These 2 details would not have been overlooked by Jews at the time. They speak of Passover and of the exodus … reminding them of their deliverance from captivity. Moses parting of the sea, so they could cross would have come to mind in point 2.

Given that then the context of John 6 is in light of the Passover … the eating of the lamb required and the posting of blood on the door lentils. 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.

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.