Protestants: Why don't you follow his command? "Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood"

  • Thread starter Thread starter St.Eric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

St.Eric

Guest
I hear over and over again how Catholics beleive and pratice things that are not in the bible. Here is one dogma of the RCC that is in the bible over and over again- We must truly eat his flesh and drink his blood if we are to have life in us. Yet, with only a couple of exceptions, protestants discount this command either entirely or they discount the literal interpretation and claim it is only symbollical at best. Why? Convince me. Convince us Catholics that we are wrong on this issue. Why do you take the scriptires literally on so many other issues and yet on this most important issue, you calim it is now only symbolic?

Save all of the other debates for other threads. Let’s talk about being cannibals here!

Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Jn 6:35-71 - Eucharist promised
Mt 26:26ff (Mk 14:22ff., Lk 22:17ff.) - Eucharist instituted
1Cor 10:16 - Eucharist = participation in Christ’s body & blood
1 Cor 11:23-29 - receiving unworthily his body & blood
Ex 12:8, 46 - Paschal lamb had to be eaten
Jn 1:29 - Jesus called “Lamb of God”
1 Cor 5:7 - Jesus called "paschal lamb who has been sacrificed
Jn 4:31-34; Mt 16;5-12 - Jesus talking symbolically about food
1Cor 2:14-3:4 - explains what “the flesh” means in Jn 6:63
Ps 14:4; Is 9:18-20; Is 49:26; Mic 3:3; 2Sm 23:15-17; Rv 17:6, 16 -
to symbolically eat & drink one’s body & blood = assault

“Oh Sacred Heart of Jesus, truly present in the Holy Eucharist, we place our trust in you!”
 
Well, since I’m Lutheran, I will go ahead and assume you’re not talking to me.
 
40.png
Steadfast:
Well, since I’m Lutheran, I will go ahead and assume you’re not talking to me.
Click to expand...
🙂 Yes. You would be one of the “couple of exceptions”

God Bless!
 
40.png
Tonks40:
Don’t forget the Anglicans (homage to my hubby!) 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes, yes. The Lutherans and the Anglicans. I can’t think of any others. (that’s why I said in the OP “with a couple of exceptions”). 🙂
 
Well, I grew up a United Methodist…and was always irritated when ‘holy communion’ came around…if you say that ‘This is Christ’s body’…then by gosh it should BE the body of our savior…

Thats why I am eager to join the CC. I always knew that it was in the bible, but didn’t quite know where. but when I started to look into the CC, I found it…John 6…It’s right there…There should be no debate about it…

It would be kind of interesting to hear what Fundamentalist, Sola Scriptura people say about that…

Joe
 
As a Lutheran, I did believe that it was the Body and Blood of Christ as he said.

That is why it was so disturbing to me one day to see the communion wafers and wine treated as if it was common food after the church service.

That got me thinking - if it really is the Body and Blood of Christ, why are we dumping the wine down the sink? It didn’t seem logical that the bread and wine was only Christ’s Body and Blood during the church service and reverted back to what it was before after the service.

I didn’t know anything about Catholic practice regarding the Eucharist. When I found out what Catholics do with the Bread and Wine after the service - that they treat it with respect as if it truly is the Body and Blood of Christ, it was an “Aha” moment for me.
 
I’ve always wanted to ask my close non-denominational and Baptist friends this very question. They seem so Bible-oriented, but yet gloss over many of the significant commands of God outlined in the Old and New Testaments.
 
I hope we will get some Protestants who do not believe in the Real Presence to contribute so we can really begin the discussion. I’m ready!
 
What really should concern Protestants most is that if they don’t believe it and walk away, they could be in a sense taking the mark of the beast:
John 6:66 From that moment many of His disciples turned back and no longer walked with Him.
Click to expand...
It’s an uncanny coincidence that the the only 666 chapter and verse combination that exists in the New Testament is John 6:66 - When you refuse to believe in the Eucharist, you are no longer walking side by side with Christ. Just plumb uncanny!
 
JoeyWarren, I have seen you bring this point up several times, and I do have to concede that it is an odd “coincidence” to say the least.
 
Yes it is. At the moment I read John 6 in its entirety a month ago and came to the 66th verse, it jumped out of me like large flashing neon sign. And for some reason I can’t shake myself from it. It’s there in my mind, and I don’t think it will ever go away now. Sometimes it takes me hours to get to sleep becausing I am turning over all of the ramifications of that Chapter and eventually that one verse.
 
Hey, you guys have to really learn to contain yourself in these instances. A Catholic comes up to pose questions to a protestant, and then 5 or 6 of you come back to comment, basically saying “yeah, that’s so stupid that they do that”.

Now, i’m sure you’re not all sitting in the same house saying “we’re gonna get them now, let’s swarm em”, but it really turns people off. It almost changes the Original Posters intent from one of possible peace to a more aggressive one.
All i’m saying is that, if you have a point to counter the Protestants, wait until they speak first, and then counter if appropriate. Thank you.

Now, if i could take us away from the ramifications of 666 and to the answer to the question.
You quoted many verses talking about eating the body and blood. Yet, the New Testament also speaks about Christ as the sheapard, and us as the sheep. This does not mean we are to wear wool. I would venture to guess that there might even be just as many sources for this metaphor as for the flesh and blood.
So, what’s the conclusion? well, i don’t think that you are stupid or foolish for thinking the way you do. I do, however, think there are many instances where christ and his disciples used metaphors, and it is a pity that we have taken one of those instances, and blown it up so big.
My Grandma once said she saw Jesus’s face in the wood of the door. Now, my grandma isn’t crazy, but she is faithful. She showed this picture around to everybody, trying to help everyone see it(she even had video where she stopped the video for us to see.) I was younger at the time, i asked my parents what it meant. My dad told me that we would know God’s miracles by the fruit that they brought. What this meant for Grandma is that if she spent so much time watching this video that she neglected her Jail ministry, or her prayer letter, it would not have been from God, because he wouldn’t have sent something to be used in this way.

Can this apply here? Are we spending so much time dueling brothers about the truth of body and blood that we risk missing the true meaning, both for new believers and old? Is this an example of what Paul talked about? He said that if you feel it is a sin for you to eat meat from the marketplace, because it may have been offered to idols, then it is? Is God so expansive that he has different rules and expectations on different people?

Brother in christ
Egg4christ
 
The doctrine of the Eucharist is explicit in the Bible. It left no doubt that this is not metaphor.

From the Bible:

Matt. 16:12 - in this verse, Jesus explains His metaphorical use of the term “bread.” In John 6, He eliminates any metaphorical possibilities.

John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times “I AM the bread from heaven.” It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52). John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases “real” food and “real” drink use the word “alethes.” “Alethes” means “really” or “truly,” and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus’ flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus’ disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, “Who can ‘listen’ to it (much less understand it)?” To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.

John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

www.scripturecatholic.com
 
John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn’t Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn’t Jesus say, “Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!”? Because they understood correctly.

Mark 4:34 - Jesus always explained to His disciples the real meanings of His teachings. He never would have let them go away with a false impression, most especially in regard to a question about eternal salvation.

John 6:37 - Jesus says He would not drive those away from Him. They understood Him correctly but would not believe.

John 3:5,11; Matt. 16:11-12 - here are some examples of Jesus correcting wrong impressions of His teaching. In the Eucharistic discourse, Jesus does not correct the scandalized disciples.

John 6:64,70 - Jesus ties the disbelief in the Real Presence of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist to Judas’ betrayal. Those who don’t believe in this miracle betray Him.

John 10:7 - Protestants point out that Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, “I am the door.” But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically.

John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, “I am the vine.” Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine. In John 6,** Jesus’ disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten).** He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18 – Jesus says He will not drink of the “fruit of the vine” until He drinks it new in the kingdom. Some Protestants try to use this verse (because Jesus said “fruit of the vine”) to prove the wine cannot be His blood. But the Greek word for fruit is “genneema” which literally means “that which is generated from the vine.” In John 15:1,5 Jesus says “I am the vine.” So “fruit of the vine” can also mean Jesus’ blood. In 1 Cor. 11:26-27, Paul also used “bread” and “the body of the Lord” interchangeably in the same sentence. Also, see Matt. 3:7;12:34;23:33 for examples were “genneema” means “birth” or “generation.”

Luke 1:37 - with God, nothing is impossible. If we can believe in the incredible reality of the Incarnation, we can certainly believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. God coming to us in elements He created is an extension of the awesome mystery of the Incarnation.

Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is “Touto estin to soma mou.” This phraseology means “this is actually” or “this is really” my body and blood.

1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - “touto mou estin to soma.” The statement is “this is really” my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying “this represents (not is) my body and blood.” However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for “represent,” but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for “estin” which means "is."

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, “the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ’s body and blood?” Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul’s questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood.** Further, the Greek word “koinonia” describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood**. 1 Cor. 10:18 - in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.

www.scripturecatholic.com
 
40.png
St.Eric:
We must truly eat his flesh and drink his blood if we are to have life in us.
Click to expand...
I inquired about interpretating this literally some time ago. Seems to me that, if it is literal, then we evangelicals have no life in us.

Luckily, some Catholics wrote in and explained some way or other how I could still have life in me, even though I did not physically eat Jesus’ flesh. They even quoted the CCC.

So I felt much better once I learned that y’all don’t believe it’s literal, either.
 
40.png
Kevan:
I inquired about interpretating this literally some time ago. Seems to me that, if it is literal, then we evangelicals have no life in us.

Luckily, some Catholics wrote in and explained some way or other how I could still have life in me, even though I did not physically eat Jesus’ flesh. They even quoted the CCC.

So I felt much better once I learned that y’all don’t believe it’s literal, either.
Click to expand...
Please expound on your one liners. It is not enough to say “someone said something once” and now I feel a lot better and “you guys don’t take it literally.” You will need to do better than that. Yes we do take it literally. As far as not having any life in you if you don’t eat his flesh and drink his blood, well, that is between you and God. Not for me to judge. All I know is that is what he has commanded us to do. Yes indeed, his words are life, and his words tell us to DO things.
 
Egg4Christ,

Indeed Christ often spoke in parables and used metaphors. The kicker is that when the disciples or the people being instructed, he further clarified himself to make them understand if they weren’t getting it in the first place. He does not do this in the Johnn 6 discourse. He lets them walk away. He cannot clarify the parable because there is no parable or metaphor to clarify in this teaching. He is telling them flat out- Eat my flesh and drink my blood. End of story. The crowd was repulsed by this and left. He let them walk.
 
40.png
St.Eric:
Convince us Catholics that we are wrong on this issue. Why do you take the scriptires literally on so many other issues and yet on this most important issue, you calim it is now only symbolic?
Click to expand...
Hello St. Eric. Just me, remember I am not an apologetic, not even close.

John 6:54 “Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life;…”

Now, that should prove eternal security. From a Catholic point of view, the bread IS flesh, the drink IS blood…but then a flip flop…“has eternal life” only means maybe or perhaps…Jesus himself is incorrect there then. He is correct on the IS part, but erroneous on the eternal life part.

Seems odd to me.

If the bread and drink are taken symbolically,…then “has eternal life” makes sense.
 
40.png
Kevan:
I inquired about interpretating this literally some time ago. Seems to me that, if it is literal, then we evangelicals have no life in us.

Luckily, some Catholics wrote in and explained some way or other how I could still have life in me, even though I did not physically eat Jesus’ flesh. They even quoted the CCC.

So I felt much better once I learned that y’all don’t believe it’s literal, either.
Click to expand...
Kevan -

Maybe you should re-examine this command again in regards to the Eucharist. As Catholic response suggests, yes, we do understand that you can gain salvation outside of the Church. But you cannot suggest that we take this command of Christ in John 6 “literally” - even some of the most lax Catholics I know understand that the Eucharist contains substantially the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, and their actions at Mass during the consecration and reception of it reflect the reverence and belief they have. This is something that is definately not taken “literally” or lightly by devout Catholics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top