Truly truly I say to you...

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Why is it when our Lord says the words “Truly truly” that Protestants believe the words after don’t really mean whay they say?

John 3:5 "Jesus answered, “Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the spirit, he can-not enter the kingdom of heaven”

But Protestants say Baptism has nothing to do with salvation.

John 6:53 "So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;”

But Protestants say that he did mean that you have to really eat his flesh and drink his blood. He was just talking symbolically.

What gives?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Why is it when our Lord says the words “Truly truly” that Protestants believe the words after don’t really mean whay they say?

John 3:5 "Jesus answered, “Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the spirit, he can-not enter the kingdom of heaven”

But Protestants say Baptism has nothing to do with salvation.

John 6:53 "So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;”

But Protestants say that he did mean that you have to really eat his flesh and drink his blood. He was just talking symbolically.

What gives?

Hi,

We do believe we just intrepret those Scriptures differently then you guys.

That’s what gives:thumbsup:

 

[jmcrae]

Why is it when our Lord says the words “Truly truly” that Protestants believe the words after don’t really mean whay they say?

John 3:5 "Jesus answered, “Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the spirit, he can-not enter the kingdom of heaven”

But Protestants say Baptism has nothing to do with salvation.

John 6:53 "So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;”

But Protestants say that he did mean that you have to really eat his flesh and drink his blood. He was just talking symbolically.

What gives?

That’s interesting; I hadn’t ever noticed that before. Maybe Protestants think He meant to say, “Metaphorically, metaphorically, I say unto you …”

 

[AlegreFe]

Hi,

We do believe we just intrepret those Scriptures differently then you guys.

That’s what gives:thumbsup:

That does not make sense if you “do believe” but just interpret it differently.

It is what it is. Jesus could not be any clearer on what He says in those verses.

You just can’t see it right now. But mostly you don’t want to see it in the light of the Catholic Faith.

 

[AlegreFe]

That’s interesting; I hadn’t ever noticed that before. Maybe Protestants think He meant to say, “Metaphorically, metaphorically, I say unto you …”

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

How 'bout this one, “symbolically, symbolically, I say to you, I never meant you should actually eat me. You could still live without me, even without this bread, after all this bread does not really give life. I just called it the ‘bread of life’ but meant it only in a ‘symbolic’ way, so please come back… don’t walk away, come back!!”

 

[Big_Dave]

This is very interesting to me. As a life long protestant I was always told that when Jesus said,“Truly truly I say to you” that he was about to tell us something very important. However looking back now I see where sometimes these words where ignored. Glat to be becoming a Catholic.

 

[MrStain]

This is very interesting to me. As a life long protestant I was always told that when Jesus said,“Truly truly I say to you” that he was about to tell us something very important. However looking back now I see where sometimes these words where ignored. Glat to be becoming a Catholic.

Same here Big_Dave and welcome home. Raised a southern Baptist I was always taught that ‘communion’ was merely symbolic gesture by our Lord. However, I always felt that we were missing something in our ‘Lord’s Supper’ ceremonies held once a month at our Baptist church. By the grace of God, and some digging into the history of our Church, I came to realize that what I was looking for could be found in the Catholic Church. When I came across the below quotes from St. Ignatius of Antioch and other early Christians professing in the real presence of our Lord I knew where I was headed…to the dismay of my pastors.

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ…”

I just wanted to mention that I first ran across the early writings of the Church Fathers because I felt a strong desire to defend Mary from some of the attacks presented in one of our Bible studies. I can only assume that those feelings to protect her came from our Lord as I certainly wasn’t raised to even think much about Mary except at Christmas.

 

[AlegreFe]

I just wanted to mention that I first ran across the early writings of the Church Fathers because I felt a strong desire to defend Mary from some of the attacks presented in one of our Bible studies. I can only assume that those feelings to protect her came from our Lord as I certainly wasn’t raised to even think much about Mary except at Christmas.

:yup: I believe the same thing. I feel strongly in Mary’s role to have the Holy Spirit convert many Christians to the Catholic Faith. Mary loves us and she wants us to be with Jesus and with His Church.

 

[MrStain]

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i85/Alegre-Fe/Emoticons/Laughhaha.gif

How 'bout this one, “symbolically, symbolically, I say to you, I never meant you should actually eat me. You could still live without me, even without this bread, after all this bread does not really give life. I just called it the ‘bread of life’ but meant it only in a ‘symbolic’ way, so please come back… don’t walk away, come back!!”

That is a perfect representation of how it is taught today in many Protestant churches. However, I’ve seen the Holy Spirit try to bring the fullness of the truth right into a Baptist sermon one Sunday. The minister was leading us in prayer in preparation for the ‘Lord’s Supper’ as we called it. As he was praying he began to speak about how this was an important part of our Christian life and that Jesus was present with us in a very special way when we participate in the Lord’s Supper. I am paraphrasing it, but I thought that he was becoming a Catholic (or lapsing into his Episcopalian roots) right then and there. For his good fortune, he caught himself and made sure that he emphasized “symbolically, symbolically” at the closing part of the prayer. My eyes were closed in prayer, but I could imagine the face on the other parishioner’s faces was something like this before my Pastor’s clarification:

The majority of my Pastor’s prayer just seemed so right and filled with the Holy Spirit to me, but the quick clarification of “symbolically” at the end felt so man-made and false.

 

[AlegreFe]

As he was praying he began to speak about how this was an important part of our Christian life and that Jesus was present with us in a very special way when we participate in the Lord’s Supper. I am paraphrasing it, but I thought that he was becoming a Catholic (or lapsing into his Episcopalian roots) right then and there. For his good fortune, he caught himself and made sure that he emphasized “symbolically, symbolically” at the closing part of the prayer. My eyes were closed in prayer, but I could imagine the face on the other parishioner’s faces was something like this before my Pastor’s clarification:

I think that was the Holy Spirit trying to sneak in the fact that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist but then had to tell this pastor that it is only real in the Catholic Church and only a symbol in his church, and therefore had to clarify. http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i85/Alegre-Fe/Emoticons/Laughing.gif

MrStain:

The majority of my Pastor’s prayer just seemed so right and filled with the Holy Spirit to me, but the quick clarification of “symbolically” at the end felt so man-made and false.

Isn’t it great how the Holy Spirit works? Perhaps just for those few seconds it is very possible that a seed was planted in the souls of many of the congregation for a possible future propagation.

 

[justasking4]

I’m confused. If I take what Jesus says in John 6:53 literally then that would mean that He was talking about canabalism. If Jesus had the eurachrist in mind here, why is it not even mentioned?

 

[Stephen_C]

I’m confused. If I take what Jesus says in John 6:53 literally then that would mean that He was talking about canabalism. If Jesus had the eurachrist in mind here, why is it not even mentioned?

No it is not. Canabalism = eating dead flesh. Jesus is alive! Plus you need to look up what transubstantiation means. It is the substance of the bread and wine that is converted. The accidents (look, feel, taste) reamins that of bread and wine.
This question and comment cycles about once a month on this forum. As well as all the other ones you have stated on this forum so far.

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I’m confused. If I take what Jesus says in John 6:53 literally then that would mean that He was talking about canabalism. If Jesus had the eurachrist in mind here, why is it not even mentioned?

Funny because if you read John 6:52 the Jewish folks asked the same question: “The Jews then disputed amongst themselves saying “How can the man give us his flesh to eat?”” That is when he clarified in vs 53 that he was serious.

Read the entire passage:

41: The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.”
42: They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, I have come down from heaven'?" 43: Jesus answered them, "Do not murmur among yourselves. 44: No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45: It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught by God.’ Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.
46: Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father.
47: Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
48: I am the bread of life.
49: Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
50: This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
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.” **
52: The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53: So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
54: he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55: For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. **
56: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
57: As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
58: This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."
59: This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper’na-um.
60: Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” **

This is not symbolic language, read it carefully. A lot of his diciples left him because of what you said “he wants us to be canibals”. He didn’t stop them and clarify it was symbolic…

Also if it is symbolic, then how do you expalin vs 51 where our Lord says “the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh” when did Christ give his flesh for the life of the world? On the Cross, not symbolically but painfully real.

 

[Stephen_C]

I’m confused. If I take what Jesus says in John 6:53 literally then that would mean that He was talking about canabalism. If Jesus had the eurachrist in mind here, why is it not even mentioned?

Small hijack:
Maybe we need to start a anti Catholic newbe sticky with all these misinformed/misquoted comments. Or you could spend a little time to find out what we Catholic’s really believe. Not what anti-Catholic’s think we are and what we believe. Read the CCC, that is what we believe. Not what is written on those anti-Catholic website’s. Or from the pulputs of those anti-Catholic preachers and decievers. Then if you have issue’s with that then by all means post. But at if you do disagree with us disagree as to what we truly believe. Don’t disagree with what we do not believe.

Ok back to the OP’s topic.
God Bless,
Stephen

 

[Knight4God]

Why is it when our Lord says the words “Truly truly” that Protestants believe the words after don’t really mean whay they say?

John 3:5 "Jesus answered, “Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the spirit, he can-not enter the kingdom of heaven”

But Protestants say Baptism has nothing to do with salvation.

John 6:53 "So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;”

But Protestants say that he did mean that you have to really eat his flesh and drink his blood. He was just talking symbolically.

What gives?

“Protestants” believe no such thing. Allot of us belive they are sacraments and are channels of grace in some way. see Lutheranism, Anglicanism and the Church of Christ for Baptism who all believe baptism plays a role in salvation and Lutheranism, Anglicanism and Reformed who do not believe Eucharist is only symbolic. Your confusing Zwinglianism/Baptist with Protestantism. Which is ok, allot of Protestants also do this sometimes too, and think a “true Protestant” would never believe in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist or that Baptism brings grace, but they would be wrong if they read a little Luther

So a better question: Why do those in the Evangelical Bible and/or Baptist camps have those two views:thumbsup:

 

[rbarcia]

Why is it when our Lord says the words “Truly truly” that Protestants believe the words after don’t really mean whay they say?

John 3:5 "Jesus answered, “Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the spirit, he can-not enter the kingdom of heaven”

But Protestants say Baptism has nothing to do with salvation.

John 6:53 "So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;”

But Protestants say that he did mean that you have to really eat his flesh and drink his blood. He was just talking symbolically.

What gives?

This is not true. Baptism is important. But for example, the criminal on the cross, who genuinely repented, would have asked to be baptized if He could, but obviously, the Lord will not hold that against Him.

**

Romans 6:4

Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

**

This is why full immersion is important. Symbolizing going into the water, burying our old self, and coming out, being resurrected with Christ. Jesus’s Baptism Himself was Full Immersion.

**

Matt 3

16 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. 17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

**

And the fact that He used the word Truly twice, or verily twice depending on the translation is a writing style of John.

**

John 10

1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

**

Where is the sacrament of the literal door. Where is the sacrament where we enter though a sheep’s door? Shouldn’t we celebrate it then if He verily, verily.

**

John 12

Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

**

Where is the sacrament of the corn of wheat? Do Catholics celebrate a holiday where you drop a piece of corn. Then based on your logic, you should, he said verily twice.

The context determines the meaning of the verses. As you go through the dialogue, Jesus reveals the meaning. In chapter 3, He reveals how one is born again when Nicodemus keeps asking…

**

John 3

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

**

Much how Jesus in chapter 6 reveals He was speaking in Spirit in Chapter 6.

**

John 6

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

**

 

[justasking4]

No it is not. Canabalism = eating dead flesh. Jesus is alive! Plus you need to look up what transubstantiation means. It is the substance of the bread and wine that is converted. The accidents (look, feel, taste) reamins that of bread and wine.
This question and comment cycles about once a month on this forum. As well as all the other ones you have stated on this forum so far.

I’m aware of what the catholic church says about transubstantiation. That’s not what is going on here in John 6.

 

[justasking4]

Small hijack:
Maybe we need to start a anti Catholic newbe sticky with all these misinformed/misquoted comments. Or you could spend a little time to find out what we Catholic’s really believe. Not what anti-Catholic’s think we are and what we believe. Read the CCC, that is what we believe. Not what is written on those anti-Catholic website’s. Or from the pulputs of those anti-Catholic preachers and decievers. Then if you have issue’s with that then by all means post. But at if you do disagree with us disagree as to what we truly believe. Don’t disagree with what we do not believe.

Ok back to the OP’s topic.
God Bless,
Stephen

I’m asking the catholics here to show from John 6 that Jesus is literally saying to eat His flesh or that this is about the eurachrist. Read John 6

 

[justasking4]

Funny because if you read John 6:52 the Jewish folks asked the same question: “The Jews then disputed amongst themselves saying “How can the man give us his flesh to eat?”” That is when he clarified in vs 53 that he was serious.

Read the entire passage:

41: The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.”
42: They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, I have come down from heaven'?" 43: Jesus answered them, "Do not murmur among yourselves. 44: No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45: It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught by God.’ Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.
46: Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father.
47: Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
48: I am the bread of life.
49: Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
50: This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
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.” **
52: The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53: So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
54: he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55: For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. **
56: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
57: As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
58: This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."
59: This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper’na-um.
60: Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” **

This is not symbolic language, read it carefully. A lot of his diciples left him because of what you said “he wants us to be canibals”. He didn’t stop them and clarify it was symbolic…

It seems that if i take a literal view as opposed to a symbolic-metaphorical one then what am to make of 6:41? When Jesus spoke these words, He did not have the characteristics of bread. That would be absurd. Rather, He is speaking metaphorcially.

Also if it is symbolic, then how do you expalin vs 51 where our Lord says “the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh” when did Christ give his flesh for the life of the world? On the Cross, not symbolically but painfully real.

I would agree. However, when He speaks of being bread, He is not speaking literally.

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I would agree. However, when He speaks of being bread, He is not speaking literally.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean at that particular instance or are you talking about transubstantiation? When he took the bread and said “this is my body”?