Why Do People Say They Believe The Bible And Then Do Not Believe The Words Of Our Lord

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_Pick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bill_Pick

Guest
53Then 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. 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.KJB
AND DO NOT BELIEVE PAUL OR JOHN
 
That would be the question. I have never gotten an answer other than “He was speaking metaphorically”
 
BILL PICK said:
53Then 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. 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.KJB
AND DO NOT BELIEVE PAUL OR JOHN
Click to expand...
As a protestant (for now) I can tell you that this is one of the passages that tends to get overlooked as it causes issues. To read this the way it is written (gee, why do that) infers that the Catholic idea of transubstantiation is correct and as protestants we cannot have that. It is usually read as symbolic even though the whole thing with disciples leaving when they thought it real makes the symbolic ploy a little empty.

This is one of the reasons that many protestants emphasize the synoptic gospels over John.
 
BILL PICK said:
53Then 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. 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.KJB
AND DO NOT BELIEVE PAUL OR JOHN
Click to expand...
Great question. There are a number of details in John 6 alone that make it very clear that the disciples interpreted Jesus literally:
  • From earlier in John 6:16-22, we know that the disciples has just seen Him perform the miracle of the loaves and the fish and walk on water **the day before **the Last Supper. These miracles were very fresh in the minds of His disciples, and yet they left Him over a supposed symbolic teaching?
  • Jesus says in verse 59 that eating His flesh and drinking His blood is greater than the miracle of the manna in the desert. Can a mere symbol be greater than such a miracle that served to sustain an entire people?
  • Why was this labeled by the disciples as such a “hard teaching”? Is symbolically eating a piece of bread and symbolically drinking some wine/grape juice really a hard teaching?
  • If Jesus was speaking symbolically, why didn’t He explain to the disciples whom were leaving that He was just being symbolic and there was no need to get stressed out about a literal interpretation? Whenever Jesus told a parable which was not understood (either by the people, the disciples, or both), He made a point of clarifying and explaining His message until it was understood. See Matthew 13 for a few quick examples in the sower and the seed, as well as the cockle and the field.
This doesn’t even begin to account for the fact that Paul (who was not a disciple at the time of the Last Supper) also preached transubstantiation, as the OP said. When all of Scripture is taken into account and in context, it becomes very clear that Jesus was speaking literally and not symbolically, and that those in His presence understood as much. If those in Jesus’ presence understood Him to be speaking literally, why does it make sense for this to change some 1500 years later?
 
mpernot said:
  • From earlier in John 6:16-22, we know that the disciples has just seen Him perform the miracle of the loaves and the fish and walk on water **the day before **the Last Supper. These miracles were very fresh in the minds of His disciples, and yet they left Him over a supposed symbolic teaching?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I misspoke when I said “Last Supper” here. I know that this was the teaching of transubstantiation but not the Last Supper (John 13).
 
tugbaby said:
That would be the question. I have never gotten an answer other than “He was speaking metaphorically”
Click to expand...
That is the Fundamentalist favorite line when they wish to reject a Teaching,
 
BILL PICK said:
53Then 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. 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.KJB
AND DO NOT BELIEVE PAUL OR JOHN
Click to expand...
and what’s scary and not much emphasized are the immediate following verses that Jesus knew from the beginning the ones not to believe - and the one to betray him, a devil “… he was referring to judas iscariot.”:eek:
God bless.
 
Karen1960 said:
That is the Fundamentalist favorite line when they wish to reject a Teaching,
Click to expand...
Catholics believe that their Holy Communion, the Blessed Eucharist, is the actual Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ, because that is what Christ said It was: This is my body... This is my blood'' (Matt. 26:26-28; see also Luke 22:19-20 and Mark 14:22-24); because that is what Christ said they must receive in order to have eternal life: . . . Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you…’’ (John 6:48-52; 54-56); and because that is what the Apostles believed: The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?'' (1 Cor. 10:16). Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.’’ (1 Cor. 11:27-29). Also, Catholics believe that Holy Communion is the actual Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ because that is what all Christians believed until the advent of Protestantism in the 16th century.
 
To say protestant’s don’t emphasise John as much is stupid. Can we have evidence of this? Otherwise it is slander.

I believe in the real presence, but others argue with points like, Jesus said he was the door, the vine etc, we don’t take that literally. So why should we take his comments on his flesh literally? That’s what they say anyway.

To say protestants don’t like John is ridiculous.
 
grampben said:
I believe in the real presence, but others argue with points like, Jesus said he was the door, the vine etc, we don’t take that literally. So why should we take his comments on his flesh literally? That’s what they say anyway.

.
Click to expand...
If one continues reading John, he will find that Jesus actually uses “figures”

In John 10 Jesus says He is a door but they did not understand so John records this:
John 10:6 " This figure Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them. So Jesus again said to them…"

In John 16 25 Jesus says " I have said this to you in figures"
In John 16:29 " His disciples said, "Ah now you are speaking plainly, not in any figures"

It is very interesting that in John 6, Jesus could have said he is speaking in figures as He did elsewhere in John. Seems clear to me that Jesus was speaking literally about eating His flesh and blood
 
Our_Refuge said:
If one continues reading John, he will find that Jesus actually uses “figures”

In John 10 Jesus says He is a door but they did not understand so John records this:
John 10:6 " This figure Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them. So Jesus again said to them…"

In John 16 25 Jesus says " I have said this to you in figures"
In John 16:29 " His disciples said, "Ah now you are speaking plainly, not in any figures"

It is very interesting that in John 6, Jesus could have said he is speaking in figures as He did elsewhere in John. Seems clear to me that Jesus was speaking literally about eating His flesh and blood
Click to expand...
Me too.
 
Jesus said:
"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
(John 6:54 NASB)
Click to expand...
Is it true then that anyone who receives the Eucharist in a Catholic Church is saved?
 
Karen1960 said:
No, just receiving Holy Commuion does not save you.
Click to expand...
Then since Jesus says if someone eats His flesh and drinks His blood he has eternal life, He must not be speaking literally in some part of the statement. Otherwise anyone who did would be saved.
 
SyCarl said:
Then since Jesus says if someone eats His flesh and drinks His blood he has eternal life, He must not be speaking literally in some part of the statement. Otherwise anyone who did would be saved.
Click to expand...
definitely you’ll have eternal life, but if after receiving his body and blood you wilfully committed a mortal sin, you may lose that eternal life, unless you repent and confess your sin.👍 Catholics are “works in progress”, just like what st paul had been saying about himself.
God bless.
 
grampben said:
To say protestant’s don’t emphasise John as much is stupid. Can we have evidence of this? Otherwise it is slander.

I believe in the real presence, but others argue with points like, Jesus said he was the door, the vine etc, we don’t take that literally. So why should we take his comments on his flesh literally? That’s what they say anyway.

To say protestants don’t like John is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND JOHN,THIS IS WHAT THEY DO NOT BELIVE "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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. As the living Father sent me,
 
To me, it’s always been a wonder of inconsistency that many Protestants take the Bible literally in so many verses EXCEPT in those verses where Jesus HIMSELF says, “truly, truly…” I.e., the verses on Baptism and Eucharist. It is the very verses wherein Jesus says “truly, truly” that many Protestants, to support their man-made religions, would rather interpret SYMBOLICALLY.🤷

Blessings
 
Our_Refuge said:
If one continues reading John, he will find that Jesus actually uses “figures”

In John 10 Jesus says He is a door but they did not understand so John records this:
John 10:6 " This figure Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them. So Jesus again said to them…"

In John 16 25 Jesus says " I have said this to you in figures"
In John 16:29 " His disciples said, "Ah now you are speaking plainly, not in any figures"

It is very interesting that in John 6, Jesus could have said he is speaking in figures as He did elsewhere in John. Seems clear to me that Jesus was speaking literally about eating His flesh and blood
Click to expand...
I agree, but John 6 is still not the best evidence of the real presence, since the language is remeniscint of the more figurative “I am the door”, etc.
OTOH, the Last Supper accounts and Paul’s are undeniably literal. “This is my body.”

Jon
 
emarc said:
and what’s scary and not much emphasized are the immediate following verses that Jesus knew from the beginning the ones not to believe - and the one to betray him, a devil “… he was referring to judas iscariot.”:eek:
God bless.
Click to expand...
Martin Luther, the founder of the reform believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. In 1529, he engaged the question of transubstantiation in the famous conference at Marburg with Zwingli and other Swiss theologians; he maintained his view that Christ is present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.
 
I still want proof that protestants largely ignore John in favour of the synoptic gospels.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top