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.
40.png
St.Eric:
He does not do this in the Johnn 6 discourse. He lets them walk away. The crowd was repulsed by this and left. He let them walk.
Click to expand...
We cannot even begin to guess at Jesus’ motive or heart on why he let them walk away. We could suggest, but not determine. We cannot say why he let them walk. Perhaps because he knew they were only following him for the food…“You seek me, not because you saw the miricles, but because you did eat of the loaves and were filled” John 6:26. That suggestion holds the same amount of proof as any other suggestion - it is only an asumption.
 
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...
Can you provide the link to that thread? I’d like to see exactly how the thread progressed. Thanks.
 
malachi_a_serva said:
From a Catholic point of view, the bread IS flesh, the drink IS blood
Click to expand...

Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican/Episcopalian point of view too. It’s the later Protestants who have the burden of proving it is symbolic. No Christian believed it was symoblic before the Reformation.
 
40.png
JoeyWarren:
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:

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!
Click to expand...
So you believe the Gospel of John to be a lie, and of the devil?
 

There is nothing contradictory in disposing of the bread and wine after Communion, because although Catholics regard the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as a permanent and **substantial **presence, Lutherans seem not to. Christ Himself says nothing on the matter.​

That Presence can be real, without being substantial or permanent. What it can’t be, is substantial but not real. It can perfectly well be real and permanent. Insisting on the “Real Presence”, is not a uniquely Catholic position, but one common to several theologies. What distinguishes the RC understanding of the Eucharistic Presence, is that He is Present in the manner of a substance, and that His Presence is in that sensea substantial Presence.

What is not implied, at all, is cannibalism, because the Eucharist is a sacrament - not despite its being this. There is no collision between what the Eucharist is (does ?) - that is, a sacrament, sacrifice, and eschatological meal - and the reality, or “non-fictitiousness”, of the Presence of Christ.

Other understandings of Presence of Christ in the Eucharist are possible, such as receptionism; but this is not a thread about the variety of actual Eucharist theologies as such.

There is nothing out of place in calling the Eucharist a symbol - it is one. What is not possible, is for Catholics to say it is “nothing but” a symbol. It is a symbol - it is also many other things. The mistake is to insist that it is only one out of the many things that it is.

Protestants are not disregarding the words of Christ any more than RCs are - it is not self-evident from the Bible that the Eucharist gives us a Presence of Christ which is
  • substantial
  • permanent until it ceases as a result of the destruction of the object which embodies it
  • embodied in a tangible object which may be touched, moved, and the like
  • a sacrifice to be offered even today
  • for example
In short, although the RC understanding of the Eucharist may well be in accord with the Biblical data, this is not the same as saying that the Biblical data demand to be understood as the CC understands them; nor that the RC understanding is the only correct one or only possible one. It may be both the only correct one; but quoting the Bible won’t show this to be so beyond doubt. It shows only that the Bible can be quoted to support the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist; but not that the Catholic understanding is an adequate understanding of the Biblical data; for they could be combined in many different ways, to give an understanding of the Eucharist which uses all the texts relied on by Catholics, but combines them in a different combination. ##
 
Gottle of Geer:

There is nothing contradictory in disposing of the bread and wine after Communion, because although Catholics regard the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as a permanent and **substantial **presence, Lutherans seem not to. Christ Himself says nothing on the matter.​

That Presence can be real, without being substantial or permanent. What it can’t be, is substantial but not real. It can perfectly well be real and permanent. Insisting on the “Real Presence”, is not a uniquely Catholic position, but one common to several theologies. What distinguishes the RC understanding of the Eucharistic Presence, is that He is Present in the manner of a substance, and that His Presence is in that sensea substantial Presence.

What is not implied, at all, is cannibalism, because the Eucharist is a sacrament - not despite its being this. There is no collision between what the Eucharist is (does ?) - that is, a sacrament, sacrifice, and eschatological meal - and the reality, or “non-fictitiousness”, of the Presence of Christ.

Other understandings of Presence of Christ in the Eucharist are possible, such as receptionism; but this is not a thread about the variety of actual Eucharist theologies as such.

There is nothing out of place in calling the Eucharist a symbol - it is one. What is not possible, is for Catholics to say it is “nothing but” a symbol. It is a symbol - it is also many other things. The mistake is to insist that it is only one out of the many things that it is.

Protestants are not disregarding the words of Christ any more than RCs are - it is not self-evident from the Bible that the Eucharist gives us a Presence of Christ which is
  • substantial
  • permanent until it ceases as a result of the destruction of the object which embodies it
  • embodied in a tangible object which may be touched, moved, and the like
  • a sacrifice to be offered even today
  • for example
In short, although the RC understanding of the Eucharist may well be in accord with the Biblical data, this is not the same as saying that the Biblical data demand to be understood as the CC understands them; nor that the RC understanding is the only correct one or only possible one. It may be both the only correct one; but quoting the Bible won’t show this to be so beyond doubt. It shows only that the Bible can be quoted to support the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist; but not that the Catholic understanding is an adequate understanding of the Biblical data; for they could be combined in many different ways, to give an understanding of the Eucharist which uses all the texts relied on by Catholics, but combines them in a different combination. ##
Click to expand...
Your response smacks of relativism. “they both could be true. It may be true for one, no the other. Both are the case…etc., etc.”
Yes, the biblical data could be understood any number of ways. In fact, there are 1000’s of different protestant denoms to support your claim. I do beleive there is one truth and not many confusing truths. The prince of the power of the air is the author of confusion and lies. Christ himself tells us the gate is narrow and the path is not easy.
 
40.png
malachi_a_serva:
We cannot even begin to guess at Jesus’ motive or heart on why he let them walk away. We could suggest, but not determine. We cannot say why he let them walk. Perhaps because he knew they were only following him for the food…“You seek me, not because you saw the miricles, but because you did eat of the loaves and were filled” John 6:26. That suggestion holds the same amount of proof as any other suggestion - it is only an asumption.
Click to expand...
He let them walk because they did not believe and could not accept the teaching. This was one of his major miracles, the feeding of the 5000. Did he do this simply out of charity? No. He did it to show those in attendance he is the messiah and to minister to them and preach the new covanent. To put it in modern protestant terms, it was a “good ol’ fashioned revival” where the minister and his helpers want folks to “get saved.”

He let them walk because there was nothing further to clarify. There was no parable to spell out in “plain aramaic.” It is as if Christ was saying “well, I said what I said and I meant it. if you cant handle this truth then so be it.” and he let them go.
 
United Methodists believe in the Real Presence. So… we do follow his command… ?]

O+
 
40.png
Eden:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, ‘Trogo’ is used only 6 times in the NT, five of which appear in John 6.
 
But at the same time, Jesus was known to use hyperbole to get his message across. Just because it looks like literal language doesn’t neccessarily imply he meant it as so.
 
40.png
Gnosis:
But at the same time, Jesus was known to use hyperbole to get his message across. Just because it looks like literal language doesn’t neccessarily imply he meant it as so.
Click to expand...
I concur. However, the problem is that everywhere else in scripture where he used hyperbole and the masses or apostles “didn’t get it” he further explained or elaborated on the hyperbole so they could grasp what he was really speaking about. In John 6 he did not elaborate and let them turn away…
 
40.png
St.Eric:
I concur. However, the problem is that everywhere else in scripture where he used hyperbole and the masses or apostles “didn’t get it” he further explained or elaborated on the hyperbole so they could grasp what he was really speaking about. In John 6 he did not elaborate and let them turn away…
Click to expand...
EXACTLY! The scripture is very clear that while He spoke to the crowds in parables, He explained everything to the twelve in private. If Jesus meant this in any other way than the way He said, He would have explained it to the apostles and they would have recorded such an important point.
 
Catholic apologists using John 6 again. Wavering Protestants thinking, What if they ARE right?

John 8:23: And He said to them, "You are from beneath; I AM from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

Does Catholicism really teach that heaven is literally some location above us?
**
John 8:12**: Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I AM the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”

Does Catholicism really think Jesus is literally a light?

John 10:9: "I AM the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture."
Does Catholicism think Jesus is literally a door?

John 10:11: *"I AM the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.*Does Catholicism think we are literally sheep?

John 15:1: "I AM the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
Does Catholicism literally think Jesus is a vine?

John 6:51:"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever;"
Does Catholicism literally think Christ is bread?
YES YES YES. The other ones are figurative BUT THIS ONE IS LITERAL.
 
Read the whole thing, Jesus clearly explains to the 12, contrary to what has been posted on here.

Jhn 6:25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?

Jhn 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

Jhn 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

Jhn 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

Jhn 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Jhn 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

Jhn 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

Jhn 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

Jhn 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

Jhn 6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

Jhn 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Jhn 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

Jhn 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Jhn 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Jhn 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jhn 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

Jhn 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
Jhn 6:43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Jhn 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Jhn 6:48 I am that bread of life.

Jhn 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

Jhn 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

Jhn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Jhn 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?
 
Jhn 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Jhn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jhn 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Jhn 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

Jhn 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Jhn 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Jhn 6:59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

JESUS EXPLAINS

Jhn 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

Jhn 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

Jhn 6:62 [What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

**
Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. **

Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Jhn 6:66 From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Jhn 6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

Jhn 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Jhn 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Jhn 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

Jhn 6:71 He spake of Judas Iscariot [the son] of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
 
40.png
Eden:
Can you provide the link to that thread? I’d like to see exactly how the thread progressed. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Here ya go . . .

My point back then was, if the passage is taken literally, it states that we who do not partake of the Catholic mass “have no life” in us. But the CCC says that we do have life in us. Therefore, the Church doesn’t really take the passage literally.

But after much discussion, at least two methods were presented whereby I might evade the plain meaning of the text and still make it to Heaven one day, even though I do not literally “eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood” and thereby “have life.”

Heroic efforts in the art of interpretation are not limited by denominational boundaries. (Another argument for ecumenism!)
 
This has got to be the oldest debate since the advent of Protestantism 🙂
Click to expand...
This was a quote from you on the old thread and I agree. This was never a debate before Protestantism because no Christian believed the Eucharist was symbolic before then.

It is unfortunate that the posters on that thread were attempting ecumenism in an instance in which they should not have. They certainly don’t represent the teachings of the Church. It is as it was said and Protestants denying the sacredness of the Eucharist do not have this life within them. If I had been on that forum I would have told you so that you would not have been confused for almost 2 years about it.

This article is concise for illustrating how one does not have life in them if they do not partake in the Eucharist:

The Eucharist is Essential to Healing Our World
The sacred nature of the Eucharist is absolutely essential in living a grace filled life and helps us to live a true Christian life. Jesus even promises us in John 15:12 that if we abide in Him, that we will be able to “love one another” as he has loved us. Without the help of Jesus, we cannot love each other as Christ loves us. We need to abide in Christ through the eating of His flesh, the Eucharist. The graces that we receive through eating His body are able to transform our hearts and renew our lives. But all this must be done in faith. We must believe. If we truly believe and have even the smallest amount of faith and ask Him to help us in our lives, then we will receive the help to live in love.

It is so very important to attend Mass at least weekly, if not more often. And if you are not Catholic, I encourage you to seek for yourself the Truth. See for yourself what the Early Christians wrote in the first 500 year of Christianity. I see the denial of the sacredness of the Eucharist as the root of many of the most severe problems in our world today. Most people in our world have rejected God’s commandments and rejected His Body and Blood, and as a result their minds have been darkened. Thus, they have no life in them and are easy targets of the Enemy and his prideful and deceitful influence.

trueknights.org/CurrentCause3.html
 
40.png
Gnosis:
But at the same time, Jesus was known to use hyperbole to get his message across. Just because it looks like literal language doesn’t neccessarily imply he meant it as so.
Click to expand...
Please go back and read posts #14-15.
 
O.S. Luke:
United Methodists believe in the Real Presence. So… we do follow his command… ?]

O+
Click to expand...
I wonder what the percentage of Christian faiths that teach the Eucharist as symbolism would be given that all Catholics, all Orthodox, all Lutherans, all Episcopalian/Anglicans and all Methodists believe in the Real Presence. Does anyone have a percentage on that?
 
Fredericks - You are recycling the tired Protestant argument against the Real Presence by pointing out that Jesus spoke in metaphor elsewhere. Please go back to posts #14-15 and read the part which addresses Jesus and metaphor. This has been answered already.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top