The Case Against Transubstantiation

[zerinus]

That’s right. But Jesus had no need to correct His disciples in John 6 and that is why He let them walk. Perhaps you should listen to that podcast again (ctlw83) and also watch my video again. You are in my prayers.

I did listen to that podcast, and what a waste of time that was.

zerinus

 

[roguejim]

Zerinus,

You are a heretic.

“Therefore, none of the heretics holds the truth; the Church alone is in possession of the truth.”
ST AMBROSE

“Since they deny the Gospel and contradict the Creed, they cannot celebrate with us. And, although they dare to claim the name of Christ, every creatures whose head is Christ scorns them.”
POPE ST LEO THE GREAT

"Heretics think false things about God and call it their “faith”.
ST AUGUSTINE

“The sense of Scripture can be found incorrupt *nowhere *outside the Catholic Church.”
POPE LEO XIII

“The task of interpreting authentically the Word of God has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church.”
II VATICAN COUNCIL

 

[zerinus]

Hello Zernius,

Well, it seems to me that he makes some good points on the meanings and therefore the distinction between the flesh and the spirit.

The word spirit is taken to mean symbolic or figurative by those who argue against the real presence on the basis of this scripture. Since it is not used in that way anywhere else in the bible (…and anyway who would think that in the first place, clearly spiritual and symbolic do not mean the same thing) it’s clear that the meaning of spirit is not symbolic or figurative or not literal. Is the Holy Spirit only a symbol?

He didn’t quote you but I found the part in your blog where you say: “In other words, those words were not meant to be taken literally, but spiritually” Perhaps you should change you blog since literally and spiritually are not opposites. I just looked up spiritual in a secular dictionary…not a hint of a suggestion that it means anything close to “not literal”.

I did not mean to contrast “spiritual” with “literal”. I meant to contrast it with “physical”. In other words, literally eating His flesh does not benefit anybody; but partaking of His Spirit does.

I liked this part that he had to say too: . . .

To be honest, none of the things that he says makes a lot of sense to me.

But yes perhaps you are right, perhaps more can be said about this scripture passage:

John 6:63
“It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

Perhaps I can ask the question:
discuss the similarity/difference between John 6:63 and this statement:

“You have misunderstood me, I was talking figuratively. It is my words and my teaching that give you life if you accept them, not by eating my actual flesh and drinking my actual blood”

Thank you, you have expressed it well.

I see some similarities but not enough to doubt his Eucharistic statements earlier in John 6.

I do!

Lets start with the statement “the flesh is of no avail”. Now from the dictionary, I’ve learned that avail means 1. help benefit, 2…profit by take advantage of 3. provide help, be of use value profit. So it seems to me that he is saying: the flesh is of no benefit, the flesh is of no use. But there’s no way he is talking about his own flesh because that clearly contradicts

John 6:51, Hebrews 10:10
…anyway do we even need scripture passages here, we know Jesus sacrificed his body, flesh and blood, and offered it to save us from our sins. Therefore His flesh is defintiely of great “avail”!

His flesh is of great use; but only as a sacrifice on the cross; not as golden fried nuggets with mustard and tomato sauce on top. When He says “the flesh profiteth nothing,” it means His flesh as golden fried nuggets, not as a sacrifice on the cross. You know, the Jews were a bit like Catholics; they took things too literally; so Jesus had a similar type of message for them:

Mark 7:

14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:

15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.

16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.

18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man *, it cannot defile him [spiritually];

19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:

23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.*

By the same token I might say: “There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him * can bless him [spiritually]: but the things which goes into his heart by the Spirit of God that blesses the man,”* because “it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats”.

So he must be talking about our flesh, the flesh that sees and tastes and senses the consecrated bread as what it appears to be, namely bread, but it’s not. Our flesh is of no avail for recognizing and experiencing the spiritual benefits of receiving Jesus in the Eucharist. But it’s the spiritual and very real (not figurative) benefits that we obtain not for our flesh but for our souls and spirits when we receive Jesus.

That is the most illogical reasoning imaginable.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus,

You are a heretic.

“Therefore, none of the heretics holds the truth; the Church alone is in possession of the truth.”
ST AMBROSE

“Since they deny the Gospel and contradict the Creed, they cannot celebrate with us. And, although they dare to claim the name of Christ, every creatures whose head is Christ scorns them.”
POPE ST LEO THE GREAT

"Heretics think false things about God and call it their “faith”.
ST AUGUSTINE

“The sense of Scripture can be found incorrupt *nowhere *outside the Catholic Church.”
POPE LEO XIII

“The task of interpreting authentically the Word of God has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church.”
II VATICAN COUNCIL

Your version of Christianity unfortunately is Apostate; and Apostate religions have always opposed and contradicted revealed truth.

zerinus

 

[wisdomseeker]

Zerinus,

You are a heretic.

“Therefore, none of the heretics holds the truth; the Church alone is in possession of the truth.”
ST AMBROSE

“Since they deny the Gospel and contradict the Creed, they cannot celebrate with us. And, although they dare to claim the name of Christ, every creatures whose head is Christ scorns them.”
POPE ST LEO THE GREAT

"Heretics think false things about God and call it their “faith”.
ST AUGUSTINE

“The sense of Scripture can be found incorrupt *nowhere *outside the Catholic Church.”
POPE LEO XIII

“The task of interpreting authentically the Word of God has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church.”
II VATICAN COUNCIL

I will add to that. “Outside the catholic church they can have all the gifts of the Spirit, but the grace of salvation they will not have it.” i can’t remember the author of this.

 

[ctlw83]

John 6:63
“It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

If you read this verse within the context of the rest of the John 6 passage, it does NOT contradict what he stated earlier.

Obviously, Christ would not say that HIS flesh was to no avail, as it is by His flesh that we are redeemed on the Cross. So, we know he didn’t mean the verse to refer to His flesh.

So then, he must be using flesh in a different sense of the word. Don’t forget, he says THE flesh as opposed to “My flesh” in the earlier part of the chapter. When he has used “the flesh” not referring to Himself, he is referring to the stubbornness of man, not seeing things in the proper light. See also 1 Corinthians 2:14 and 3:4 as Paul teaches on the topic.

Obviously Christ saying “the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” refers to the earlier passages in John 6, Christ would not refer to the words of His whole ministry when the people were questioning a specific teaching.

Most of the verses from John 6:60-John 6:65 are dealing with belief and faith NOT with the teaching on the Eucharist. They are more on people not believing the teaching of Christ, as opposed to Him contradicting Himself, which isn’t possible, as God cannot contradict Himself.

Notice, right after saying that His words are spirit and life, the next verse (64) immediately has Christ saying “But there are some of you who do not believe”. So, in reference, again, in the context of the previous passage, he is saying that the words he had spoken earlier in John 6 were spirit and life, and yet, there were people that were unbelieving DESPITE the fact that those words were spirit and life.

Then in John 6:66 (ironic?) most of the thousands of people left him. NOWHERE else in the New Testament do the people walk away from a teaching of Christ. So again, they understood that he meant things literally.

Also, we refer to Christ as the Paschal lamb. The Paschal lamb was to be killed and eaten, NOT just killed. It was also to be done in rememberence of a significant event. So if Christ is the new Paschal lamb, who indeed takes away the sins of the world, why would God change the form of the sacrifice?

Is it pure coincidence then, that Christ was born in Bethlehem, a town where they prepared animals for sacrifice in the temple, and was crucified on the day of Passover when the lambs were all slaughtered? Is it not also significant that Christ himself said that one needs to eat His Flesh and Drink His blood to have eternal life?

If Christ is the Paschal lamb, and God’s command through the ages states that the Paschal lamb must be sacrificed AND its flesh eaten, how is God’s word fulfilled then? How else do we partake of His flesh?

Also, belief in Christ as our savior alone is NOT enough to earn you eternal life. (as stated in a previous argument against John 6 earlier in this thread) You mean to tell me that if I say that I believe in Christ, but don’t change my ways and my deeds in life, and continue to commit serious sin, I am still going to Heaven? If I accept Christ as my savior but, rape, kill and steal the rest of my life, I would still go to heaven? It is not JUST in belief but in actions as well by which we walk the path to heaven.

Doing “works of the law” simply because you are asked to do them is not the same as doing something because of the inspiration of God’s grace in your life. So the argument against John 6 saying that Christ was simply referring to John 6:40 is not accurate. Not to mention that yes, it is God’s will that all get to heaven, however, being that man has the freedom to choose good and evil and to choose to accept God’s plan of salvation or not, this just doesn’t happen.

If God didn’t give us free will, we would not be able to make a choice to follow Him, we would not follow Him and his commands out of love but, as robots. God doesn’t want creations that are forced to love Him, God wants us to want to love Him. He does not force his will upon us.

So, as you can see later in the John 6 passage, the people CHOOSE to reject Christ’s teaching and walk away, DESPITE the words about eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood being spirit and life!

 

[Scott36]

To review you quoted me as saying (post 197):

So he must be talking about our flesh, the flesh that sees and tastes and senses the consecrated bread as what it appears to be, namely bread, but it’s not. Our flesh is of no avail for recognizing and experiencing the spiritual benefits of receiving Jesus in the Eucharist. But it’s the spiritual and very real (not figurative) benefits that we obtain not for our flesh but for our souls and spirits when we receive Jesus.

and your response was:

That is the most illogical reasoning imaginable.

zerinus

On the contrary it makes perfect sense. Jesus’ use of the word flesh has the same meaning here as it does in some of His other words from the same Gospel of John,

John 8:14-15:

…for I know whence I have come and whither I am going, but you do not know whence I come or whither I am going.
You judge according to the flesh,

You judge according to the flesh, means you judge according to worldy human reason unaided by the spirit. Certainly you know this other meaning of the word flesh as it is used here in John 8 and in other passaes in the bible. This is more less what I meant by

“the flesh that sees and tastes and senses the consecrated bread as what it appears to be, namely bread, but it’s not. Our flesh is of no avail for recognizing and experiencing the spiritual benefits of receiving Jesus in the Eucharist.”

and it makes perfect sense when compared with John 8:14-15.

You’re position doesn’t make sense.

Also contrast John 6:51
I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.

with your interpreted meaning of John 6:63
“my flesh is useless”
That’s really what you are saying. You are trying to tell us that Jesus flatly contradicted himself. Both statements cannot be true at the same time…and his flesh is certainly not useless. If you can boil down Catholic teaching into an absurdity like this, I would like to see it…I haven’t seen it yet.

 

[Scott36]

I believe in prayer so much for we are fighting against principalities & powers and against spiritual wickedness. Pray pray pray, and fast also. I believe in doing penance, that could be fasting or something else to try to make restitution. Some protestants seem to scoff at that because it sounds “too Catholic,” but we have been told in scripture to show fruits of our repentance, and simply put, that is doing penance.

Our Lady also said, “Penance, penance, penance!” This was first revealed by our Lady in Lourdes and repeated in Fatima. But she did not reveal anything “new” to us. It has already been revealed in Sacred Scripture to us by Jesus Christ. But God gave our Lady permission, I guess you could say, to reveal herself to us as she is a loving mother to all of us. She really cares about us and wanted to warn us before God’s wrath comes upon us in the end.

So we, who have the gift of faith, must pray for those who do not. I also believe that we need to pray for our own faith, “Jesus I believe, help my unbelief.”

Well said AlegreFe!
I would add that it would be good to accompany every post with a short prayer asking the aid of the Holy Spirit to keep our posts Holy and True and to aid the reader to receive the truth with grace.

Someitmes it’s easy to post here as pure argument but we must always post with love and charity and humility and prayer. Fasting and Penance to for those who are able. Very important.

God bless,
Scott

 

[zerinus]

To review you quoted me as saying (post 197):

So he must be talking about our flesh, the flesh that sees and tastes and senses the consecrated bread as what it appears to be, namely bread, but it’s not. Our flesh is of no avail for recognizing and experiencing the spiritual benefits of receiving Jesus in the Eucharist. But it’s the spiritual and very real (not figurative) benefits that we obtain not for our flesh but for our souls and spirits when we receive Jesus.

and your response was:

On the contrary it makes perfect sense. Jesus’ use of the word flesh has the same meaning here as it does in some of His other words from the same Gospel of John,

John 8:14-15:

…for I know whence I have come and whither I am going, but you do not know whence I come or whither I am going.
You judge according to the flesh,

You judge according to the flesh, means you judge according to worldy human reason unaided by the spirit. Certainly you know this other meaning of the word flesh as it is used here in John 8 and in other passaes in the bible. This is more less what I meant by

“the flesh that sees and tastes and senses the consecrated bread as what it appears to be, namely bread, but it’s not. Our flesh is of no avail for recognizing and experiencing the spiritual benefits of receiving Jesus in the Eucharist.”

and it makes perfect sense when compared with John 8:14-15.

You’re position doesn’t make sense.

Also contrast John 6:51
I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.

with your interpreted meaning of John 6:63
“my flesh is useless”
That’s really what you are saying. You are trying to tell us that Jesus flatly contradicted himself. Both statements cannot be true at the same time…and his flesh is certainly not useless. If you can boil down Catholic teaching into an absurdity like this, I would like to see it…I haven’t seen it yet.

That still remains the most illogical, artificial, hypocritical, absurd, stage-managed, and false reasoning imaginable. You must believe that people are really stupid if you think they are going to be fooled by that. You are ignoring the context of the passage completely, and introducing into it absurdities that goes beyond all good sense, rhyme or reason.

The context of the passage is the previous verses where He is telling them that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. After several protestations by His disciples, Jesus finally explains to them the true meaning of what He is saying: “The flesh profiteth nothing . . .,” He says to them. By all the rules of logic and good grammar, the word “flesh” here refers to its nearest antecedent, which is His own flesh that He had been talking about in earlier verses; not some absurdity that you would like to pull out of thin air. What He is saying is that eating His flesh physically will not save anyone; but partaking of His Spirit by faith, which is made possible by His atoning sacrifice (the sacrifice of His flesh) is what saves the believer.

zerinus

 

[AlegreFe]

I have no doubt that you feel the presence of Christ in your life. I truly believe that God gives people graces at certain times. I do believe however, that the grace that God gives you is not the same as what we have here in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That is because the Eucharist is a true Sacrament that needs to be performed by the authority of the priesthood, which only exists in the LDS Church. I even believe that those outside of the LDS Church that believe in the false doctrine of Transubstantiation, or “real presence,” as it is sometimes called, also may receive graces from God according to their belief in Christ. It’s unfortunate that they don’t really have the true Sacrament of the Eucharist in their lives as we do in the LDS Church. I do believe that Jesus makes Himself present to you in spirit and with that, those outside the LDS Church are indeed graced.

zerinus

LOL

 

[Tonks40]

That still remains the most illogical, artificial, hypocritical, absurd, stage-managed, and false reasoning imaginable. You must believe that people are really stupid if you think they are going to be fooled by that. You are ignoring the context of the passage completely, and introducing into it absurdities that goes beyond all good sense, rhyme or reason.

The context of the passage is the previous verses where He is telling them that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. After several protestations by His disciples, Jesus finally explains to them the true meaning of what He is saying: “The flesh profiteth nothing . . .,” He says to them. By all the rules of logic and good grammar, the word “flesh” here refers to its nearest antecedent, which is His own flesh that He had been talking about in earlier verses; not some absurdity that you would like to pull out of thin air. What He is saying is that eating His flesh physically will not save anyone; but partaking of His Spirit by faith, which is made possible by His atoning sacrifice (the sacrifice of His flesh) is what saves the believer.

zerinus

See my thoughts on this here.

IOW - Christ wasn’t just talking about partaking in “His Spirit by faith” but as the Jews understood it in eating of the flesh of the lamb as given in the Passover meal and in the eating of the animal sacrifice described in Leviticus and Exodus.

Understanding what the listeners of Christ during the time in John 6 goes a long way in understanding how Christ really can be the in Eucharist.

 

[mark_a]

In these quotes, Ignatius is simply copying the language of Jesus. He no more means it literally than Jesus did. The rest wrote after the doctrines had already been corrupted.

Zerinus,

Having a Mormon interperet Ignatius is like having a Jew interperet Jesus, or my priest interperet Joseph Smith.

I always enjoy your posts and appreciate your dedication to your beliefs. You give as good as you get, that’s for sure.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Yes, I was referring to that verse, and I don’t see it having been “well defended” by the Catholic side at all. I don’t see anything in that post that address that objection.

Yes, I appreciate that; and narrowing it down just to that I might say that I even agree with it.

If you read that passage carefully, you will find that Jesus is deliberately provoking them with what He is saying. He is using a provocative language throughout. His aim was to test His disciples to see who believed in Him and who didn’t. His language continues to be provocative even after He has given them the explanation. Jesus often adopted that approach when dealing with the Jews, especially His adversaries. He never tried to appease them! When they showed signs of disbelief, He seemed to provoke them even more to either make them believe or add to their unbelief. Here is one typical example:

John 8:

39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

In John 6 He is doing the same, except that He is doing it to His own disciples, to sift those that believe from those that believe not.

zerinus

How do your belief fit in this passage John 10:16 One Shepard One Flock?

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus,

Having a Mormon interperet Ignatius is like having a Jew interperet Jesus, or my priest interperet Joseph Smith.

Why should that be? Mormons have the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, revealed fresh from heaven. They are in a better place to understand or interpret the gospel than any other church on the planet.

I always enjoy your posts and appreciate your dedication to your beliefs.

Thank you. I enjoy your posts too.

You give as good as you get, that’s for sure.

LOL! And a bit extra for good measure!

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

How do your belief fit in this passage John 10:16 One Shepard One Flock?

This is the context of the verse you are referring to:

John 10:

14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

We believe it refers to other branches of the house of Israel that God had led away to the “isles of the sea,” and lost to the knowledge of the Jews who were at Jerusalem. The Book of Mormon people were one such people, but not the only ones. Jesus went and visited them after His resurrection. This is how Jesus interpreted that passage when He appeared to the Nephites, as recorded in the Book of Mormon:

3 Nephi 15:

14 And not at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell it unto your brethren at Jerusalem.

15 Neither at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell unto them concerning the other tribes of the house of Israel, whom the Father hath led away out of the land.

16 This much did the Father command me, that I should tell unto them:

17 That other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

18 And now, because of stiffneckedness and unbelief they understood not my word; therefore I was commanded to say no more of the Father concerning this thing unto them.

19 But, verily, I say unto you that the Father hath commanded me, and I tell it unto you, that ye were separated from among them because of their iniquity; therefore it is because of their iniquity that they know not of you.

20 And verily, I say unto you again that the other tribes hath the Father separated from them; and it is because of their iniquity that they know not of them.

21 And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

22 And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching.

23 And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice—that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost.

24 But behold, ye have both heard my voice, and seen me; and ye are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father hath given me.

zerinus

 

[wisdomseeker]

This is the context of the verse you are referring to:

John 10:

14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

We believe it refers to other branches of the house of Israel that God had led away to the “isles of the sea,” and lost to the knowledge of the Jews who were at Jerusalem. The Book of Mormon people were one such people, but not the only ones. Jesus went and visited them after His resurrection. This is how Jesus interpreted that passage when He appeared to the Nephites, as recorded in the Book of Mormon:

3 Nephi 15:

14 And not at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell it unto your brethren at Jerusalem.

15 Neither at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell unto them concerning the other tribes of the house of Israel, whom the Father hath led away out of the land.

16 This much did the Father command me, that I should tell unto them:

17 That other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

18 And now, because of stiffneckedness and unbelief they understood not my word; therefore I was commanded to say no more of the Father concerning this thing unto them.

19 But, verily, I say unto you that the Father hath commanded me, and I tell it unto you, that ye were separated from among them because of their iniquity; therefore it is because of their iniquity that they know not of you.

20 And verily, I say unto you again that the other tribes hath the Father separated from them; and it is because of their iniquity that they know not of them.

21 And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

22 And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching.

23 And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice—that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost.

24 But behold, ye have both heard my voice, and seen me; and ye are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father hath given me.

zerinus

I am not sure if i understood you. according to you Jesus says that the gentiles are not included in the plan of Our God?

 

[zerinus]

I am not sure if i understood you. according to you Jesus says that the gentiles are not included in the plan of Our God?

Not exactly; but when Jesus was on earth he stated:

Matthew 15:

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

zerinus

 

[wisdomseeker]

Not exactly; but when Jesus was on earth he stated:

Matthew 15:

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

zerinus

Not exactly! does not answer the question is it or is it not that gentiles are included in our God’s plan according to you?

 

[zerinus]

Not exactly! does not answer the question is it or is it not that gentiles are included in our God’s plan according to you?

They are included. But it is true though that Jesus never manifested Himself personally to the Gentiles converts after His resurrection; but only to the Jewish ones, as described by Paul:

1 Corinthians 15:

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Those “brethren” he is referring to were Jewish converts (mostly His originally disciples) not Gentile converts. These events took place shortly after Jesus had been resurrected, before the preaching among the Gentiles had begun.

zerinus

 

[wisdomseeker]

They are included. But it is true though that Jesus never manifested Himself personally to the Gentiles converts after His resurrection; but only to the Jewish ones, as described by Paul:

1 Corinthians 15:

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Those “brethren” he is referring to were Jewish converts (mostly His originally disciples) not Gentile converts. These events took place shortly after Jesus had been resurrected, before the preaching among the Gentiles had begun.

zerinus

and who is this great part remaining unto the present?