Question For All Sola Scriptura Protestants

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

shannin

Guest
Please tell me what your interpretations of the following Gospel passages:

Jesus said to the crowds of Jews: “I myself am the Living Bread come down from heaven. If anyone eats this bread he shall live forever; the bread I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”

At this the Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can he give us his flesh to eat?” Thereupon Jesus said to them:

“Let me solemnly assure you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

“For my flesh is real food and my blood real drink. The man who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the Father who has life sent me and I have life because of the Father, so the man who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from hearven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and died nonetheless, the man who feeds on this bread shall live forever.”

And, Paul’s letter to the Corinthians (10:16-17):
“Is not the cup of blessing we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, many though we are, are one body for we all partake of one loaf.”
 
40.png
shannin:
Please tell me what your interpretations of the following Gospel passages:

Jesus said to the crowds of Jews: “I myself am the Living Bread come down from heaven. If anyone eats this bread he shall live forever; the bread I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”

At this the Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can he give us his flesh to eat?” Thereupon Jesus said to them:

“Let me solemnly assure you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

“For my flesh is real food and my blood real drink. The man who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the Father who has life sent me and I have life because of the Father, so the man who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from hearven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and died nonetheless, the man who feeds on this bread shall live forever.”

And, Paul’s letter to the Corinthians (10:16-17):
“Is not the cup of blessing we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, many though we are, are one body for we all partake of one loaf.”
Click to expand...
For myself I interpret it to mean that the bread and wine of communion become the body and blood of Christ at a metaphysical level, but their physical properties do not change. (i.e. same atomic structure, mass, consistancy, etc.) I also believe that taking communion is very important, since it is both an otuward sign and an inward reconfirmation that one’s eternal hope is in the death and resurrection of Jesus. However I do not believe one’s salvation hinges on a proper understanding of communion or participation in it.
 
I had this exact conversation today with a Baptist preacher I work with. He said it was spiritual and that Christ gave us his flesh and blood on the cross. He said when they have the Lord’s Supper that Christ is spiritually present, but not carnally. I kept asking why Jesus would let all those people leave and not get eternal life if it was not literally true, and he said because Jesus could see their hearts and knew they would not turn to God. I don’t get it. Christ came to save the world. This theme of eating his flesh and drinking his blood shows up over and over in scripture, not like the parables. I said ALL the early Church fathers believed in the real presence. But, of course, he says I’m not going to change him and he knows he’s not going to change me. :rolleyes:
 
40.png
RCCDefender:
I had this exact conversation today with a Baptist preacher I work with. He said it was spiritual and that Christ gave us his flesh and blood on the cross. He said when they have the Lord’s Supper that Christ is spiritually present, but not carnally. I kept asking why Jesus would let all those people leave and not get eternal life if it was not literally true, and he said because Jesus could see their hearts and knew they would not turn to God. I don’t get it. Christ came to save the world. This theme of eating his flesh and drinking his blood shows up over and over in scripture, not like the parables. I said ALL the early Church fathers believed in the real presence. But, of course, he says I’m not going to change him and he knows he’s not going to change me. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
How sad and frustrating. I think that they make up their own interpretations of scripture to suit what they believe. Jesus was very clear in what he said. He said “this IS my body”.
 
I have a question, protestants seem to have a problem with Catholics teach that the substance change even though the accidents do not change. Do you believe that an angel(this could be viewed as being the three persons of the Trinity as well) can take the apearance of a man, like was done in Genesis18? If an angel, or God, can take on a human appearance then why not the Eucharist take the appearance of bread while actually being Christs body and blood?
 
40.png
shannin:
How sad and frustrating. I think that they make up their own interpretations of scripture to suit what they believe. Jesus was very clear in what he said. He said “this IS my body”.
Click to expand...
How about this one:
*
John 6:55: For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.*

How do you make that symbolic? What about the unanimous consent of the early Church? I don’t get it.
 
40.png
RCCDefender:
I had this exact conversation today with a Baptist preacher I work with. He said it was spiritual and that Christ gave us his flesh and blood on the cross. He said when they have the Lord’s Supper that Christ is spiritually present, but not carnally. I kept asking why Jesus would let all those people leave and not get eternal life if it was not literally true, and he said because Jesus could see their hearts and knew they would not turn to God.
Click to expand...
** Ask him where it says this in the Bible. **
 
40.png
Vincent1560:
For myself I interpret it to mean that the bread and wine of communion become the body and blood of Christ at a metaphysical level, but their physical properties do not change. (i.e. same atomic structure, mass, consistancy, etc.) I also believe that taking communion is very important, since it is both an otuward sign and an inward reconfirmation that one’s eternal hope is in the death and resurrection of Jesus. However I do not believe one’s salvation hinges on a proper understanding of communion or participation in it.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church defines that as the “accidents”. The bread and wine become the body and blood but the accidents remain. ie. if you took it to a lab and analyzed it, it would be bread and wine.

Are you saying you do not think people need to understand what they are receiving?

If so, Scripture disagrees with you

“For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Cor. 11:29)

God Bless,
Maria
 
40.png
MariaG:
The Catholic Church defines that as the “accidents”. The bread and wine become the body and blood but the accidents remain. ie. if you took it to a lab and analyzed it, it would be bread and wine.

Are you saying you do not think people need to understand what they are receiving?

If so, Scripture disagrees with you

“For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Cor. 11:29)

God Bless,
Maria
Click to expand...
As Christ said to Thomas, blessed are those who believe, but have not seen!!

Eating the body and drinking the blood of our Lord is a mystery of faith,………yet our Lord has provided signs for us that we either forget or have never been informed of.

The attached site is a great explanation of the change of the Eucharist in Lanciano, Italy that occurred in the eight century. What is so amazing here is not only the sign that Christ provided to all of us, it took another 1200 years to determine with the technology we have developed today that this “flesh” is not only human,……but also is flesh from the heart!!

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

How could the surgeons of the 8th century have pulled that one off? Then again, after the same 1200 years, our technology validates the blood as type AB, the same as in other Eucharistic miracles. Let’s see, what percent of the population have type AB blood,……less than 5 %??

Finally, what was the blood type found on the Shroud of Tourin? You know the answer.

Yes, for me, God has provided the example of the Eucharist while in the form of bread and wine is the body and blood of Christ after the Priest, not me, offers the sacrifice to God our father for us.

Do you think God was telling us something here?
 
40.png
MariaG:
The Catholic Church defines that as the “accidents”. The bread and wine become the body and blood but the accidents remain. ie. if you took it to a lab and analyzed it, it would be bread and wine.

Are you saying you do not think people need to understand what they are receiving?

If so, Scripture disagrees with you

“For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Cor. 11:29)

God Bless,
Maria
Click to expand...
I believe that they need to understand that at some level the blood and body of Christ are present in the bread and wine, but I don’t think they need to understand the underlying metaphysics of how this works. Just as I don’t believe a precise understanding of the trinity is necessary for true faith. If you believe that such understanding is necessary I would challenge you to show me one just confirmed Catholic eight year old who could explain it to me.
 
40.png
Vincent1560:
I believe that they need to understand that at some level the blood and body of Christ are present in the bread and wine, but I don’t think they need to understand the underlying metaphysics of how this works. Just as I don’t believe a precise understanding of the trinity is necessary for true faith. If you believe that such understanding is necessary I would challenge you to show me one just confirmed Catholic eight year old who could explain it to me.
Click to expand...
True, just as the good thief I am sure didn’t know the theological doctrine of the Trinity that was hammered out in the 4th century. However, what the Corinthians did was blasphemy. I am sure they were taught that the bread and wine became the body and blood of our Lord but were treating irreverently, and so they brought judgement on themselves. So too do I think people today should use caution when they look at the plain words in Scripture and the unanimous testamony of the early Church and yet deny what the Eucharist is.
 
40.png
Vincent1560:
I believe that they need to understand that at some level the blood and body of Christ are present in the bread and wine, but I don’t think they need to understand the underlying metaphysics of how this works. Just as I don’t believe a precise understanding of the trinity is necessary for true faith. If you believe that such understanding is necessary I would challenge you to show me one just confirmed Catholic eight year old who could explain it to me.
Click to expand...
No, they don’t need to understand all the details, but they do need to understand the basic idea that it is the body and blood of Christ. They also need to accept the Church which Christ established and be subject to its faith, because by accepting that Church and its faith they show that they have the faith.

A person does not need to understand the details but if they can’t say “this is the body of Christ”, they atleast need to be able to say, “I believe what the Church teaches”.
 
There is only one phenomenon on this great earth that equal the devastating reality of God that became incarnate and died for his creatures and rose again, the Holy Eucharist.

in XT.
 
40.png
AquinasXVI:
There is only one phenomenon on this great earth that equal the devastating reality of God that became incarnate and died for his creatures and rose again, the Holy Eucharist.

in XT.
Click to expand...
More than the eucharist I would argue is the saved human soul who has Christ living in them and the Spirit working through them. The eucharist is definetley an important manifestation of Christ’s redemptive power, but I believe nothing demonstrates the reality of Christ’s death and resurection more than a human being who has become born again and a new creation in Jesus Christ.
 
40.png
Vincent1560:
More than the eucharist I would argue is the saved human soul who has Christ living in them and the Spirit working through them. The eucharist is definetley an important manifestation of Christ’s redemptive power, but I believe nothing demonstrates the reality of Christ’s death and resurection more than a human being who has become born again and a new creation in Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
I would argue no, because God manifested himself as Jesus both in human form and in the Eucharist by his own power. We can only become “saved” as a result of this and never by the result of our own natural abilities.
 
40.png
arieh0310:
How about this one:

John 6:55: For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed
Click to expand...
Sola Scriptura Protestants always go on and on about interpreting the Bible exactly as it is and if something isn’t in the Bible, they don’t believe it. What Jesus said was so clear.

I pray that they come to the realization of the precious and sacred gift that Jesus Christ gave to us.
 
40.png
RCCDefender:
. I kept asking why Jesus would let all those people leave and not get eternal life if it was not literally true, and he said because Jesus could see their hearts and knew they would not turn to God.
Click to expand...
Ask him where this is in scripture. It’s not there, of course, so you can then point out that this idea is simply a part of his church’s extra-biblical tradition.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
40.png
Vincent1560:
I believe that they need to understand that at some level the blood and body of Christ are present in the bread and wine, but I don’t think they need to understand the underlying metaphysics of how this works. Just as I don’t believe a precise understanding of the trinity is necessary for true faith. If you believe that such understanding is necessary I would challenge you to show me one just confirmed Catholic eight year old who could explain it to me.
Click to expand...
I don’t think she was saying that one must understand HOW this miracle occurs because it’s simply not humanly possible. What we must be aware of, however, is THAT this miracle has occured and that what we are recieving is no longer bread but the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. NOT to acknowledge this is to eat and drink judgement upon oneself according to scripture.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
40.png
Vincent1560:
More than the eucharist I would argue is the saved human soul who has Christ living in them and the Spirit working through them. The eucharist is definetley an important manifestation of Christ’s redemptive power, but I believe nothing demonstrates the reality of Christ’s death and resurection more than a human being who has become born again and a new creation in Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you…

What do you think he meant by that? It’s so clear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top