Why do some Protestants think Catholics are going to hell?

[Porknpie]

Originally Posted by snarflemike
If a Protestant claims Catholics are going to hell, what exactly is their reasoning? What scripture are they relying on?

To put the question another way, what is required to be saved, that Catholics do not do/have?

Jesus said that you must be born again!
this is what is required to be saved.
This is where salvation begins.
When you as a catholic cannot tell what it means to have experianced this then this is why it is doubtful that you are really saved.

This is why some protestants think catholics are going to hell.

For those protestants this is where salvation begins.

They believe unless you are born again like Jesus said that even though you may be more faithful to tradition and the scriptures then Nicodemus was that you are still dead and in trespasses and sins.
That what you are doing is saying that the way Jesus said to be saved is not good enough for you and you are climbing up another way. Which is like treading the body and blood of Jesus under foot to them.
Now try not to get all defensive I am trying to answer your question as best that I can. Iam trying to be as straight forward as I know how.

There is no doubt that you are right in reflecting why…some Protestants believe Catholics would be going to h*ll, that you must be “born again” but they don’t complete the sentence… “in water and Spirit” which the church has understood from the beginning to be baptism. In fact, scripture records Jesus and the disciples going out and baptizing soon after saying these words. “Born again” is an invention of man to say such a thing only since the late 19th century.

 

[JonNC]

Without the Spirit, the waters of baptism would be nothing more than water and effect nothing, and without that same Spirit, the bread of the Holy Eucharist would be nothing more than wheat. The Spirit is present and active in all the sacraments, which are channels of grace. Those who quote this against the very obvious texts about the reality of the Flesh and Blood of our Lord in the Eucharist are so biased by the heresies that they have inherited that they fail to see the obvious. Let us keep them in prayer.

Hey Pork,
If I can bounce off this a bit with our Small Catechism:

Luther writes:

IV. **The Sacrament of Holy Baptism **

As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household.

First.

What is Baptism?–Answer.

Baptism is not simple water only, but it is the water comprehended in God’s command and connected with God’s Word.

Which is that word of God?–Answer.

Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Matthew: Go ye into all the world and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Secondly.

What does Baptism give or profit?–Answer.

It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.

Which are such words and promises of God? Answer.

Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Mark: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Thirdly.

How can water do such great things?–Answer.

It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.

Fourthly.
What does such baptizing with water signify?–Answer.

It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.

Where is this written?–Answer.

St. Paul says Romans, chapter 6: We are buried with Christ by Baptism into death, that, like as He was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Callng it “water Baptism” is simply incorrect. With a true, scriptural understanding of Baptism - that by Baptism we are born again by water and the Spirit - one must conclude that merely being Catholic is** NOT** a legitimate cause to suspect someone is not in God’s grace.

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

Hey Pork,
If I can bounce off this a bit with our Small Catechism:

Luther writes:

Callng it “water Baptism” is simply incorrect. With a true, scriptural understanding of Baptism - that by Baptism we are born again by water and the Spirit - one must conclude that merely being Catholic is** NOT** a legitimate cause to suspect someone is not in God’s grace.

Jon

Thank you, I feel so good now. So in support of being “born again of water and spirit”:

1. the words “of water and spirit” finish the writers thought: baptism. To leave those four words out is confuse the meaning of the Gospel. The writers were clearly talking about sacramental baptism being needed for salvation.
2. The disciples and Jesus went out and bapized people in verse 22. It’s all one connected thought of the writer.
3. The early church fathers believed in sacramental baptism too. There was no “born again” theology being written about or practiced.
4. And there is the reformer Luther believing and saying the same thing as reflected in your “small catechism”.

Now, if we could get all Christians to believe in infant baptism. :newidea: In the OT convenant, children were circumcised on day 8 but in the NT convenant, the new convenantal sign, baptism, waits for adults? This is a very strange idea when the bible says “whole households” were baptised and the early church believed and baptised infants.

Jon, what does your catechism say about infant baptism?

 

[Nabooru]

When I was in Lutheran confirmation, it was explained to me that the Church had appropriated God’s authority and glory for their own. My pastor told me that that’s why for over a thousand years Catholic laity weren’t supposed to read the Bible without a Church-approved guide, since one might discover that God’s church is properly run by God, not the pope. Basically what it came down to was that they had introduced doctrines in their own interest rather than remaining true to God and Christ.

I’m not Lutheran anymore, though.

 

[JonNC]

Thank you, I feel so good now. So in support of being “born again of water and spirit”:

1. the words “of water and spirit” finish the writers thought: baptism. To leave those four words out is confuse the meaning of the Gospel. The writers were clearly talking about sacramental baptism being needed for salvation.
2. The disciples and Jesus went out and bapized people in verse 22. It’s all one connected thought of the writer.
3. The early church fathers believed in sacramental baptism too. There was no “born again” theology being written about or practiced.
4. And there is the reformer Luther believing and saying the same thing as reflected in your “small catechism”.

Now, if we could get all Christians to believe in infant baptism. :newidea: In the OT convenant, children were circumcised on day 8 but in the NT convenant, the new convenantal sign, baptism, waits for adults? This is a very strange idea when the bible says “whole households” were baptised and the early church believed and baptised infants.

Jon, what does your catechism say about infant baptism?

Briefly the Augsburg Confession says:

Article IX: Of Baptism.

1] Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary 2] to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace.

3] They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.

Scroll down to the section on Infant Baptism here in the Large Catechism, which is a much more indepth view.

bookofconcord.org/lc-6-baptism.php

One interesting paragraph is:

That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from His own work, namely, that God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost; and that there are yet many even to-day in whom we perceive that they have the Holy Ghost both because of their doctrine and life; as it is also given to us by the grace of God that we can explain the Scriptures and come to the knowledge of Christ, which is impossible without the Holy Ghost. 50] **But if God did not accept the baptism of infants, He would not give the Holy Ghost nor any of His gifts to any of them; in short, during this long time unto this day no man upon earth could have been a Christian. Now, since God confirms Baptism by the gifts of His Holy Ghost, as is plainly perceptible in some of the church fathers, as St. Bernard, Gerson, John Hus, and others, who were baptized in infancy, and since the holy Christian Church cannot perish until the end of the world, they must acknowledge that such infant baptism is pleasing to God. For He can never be opposed to Himself, or support falsehood and wickedness, or for its promotion impart His grace and Spirit. 51] This is indeed the best and strongest proof for the simple-minded and unlearned. For they shall not take from us or overthrow this article: I believe a holy Christian Church, the communion of saints. **

To deny infant baptism as a work of God through water and the word, is to say that all of the saints who were baptized as infants, through all history, is to say that no one up to Luther’s time who was baptised as an infant was Christian. Ridiculous!

Jon

 

[QuickCat]

What do I make of Catholics not knowing the Gospel? I respond by saying that the Catholic church gave you the gospel in the 390’s AD although you are now missing 7 books, which were part of the Septuagint that the disciples and Jesus used in their travels. So you are missing the complete written word of God. That is sad. . Also, Catholics hear the nearly the entire bible read at Mass over a three year period on Sundays alone. If you attend Mass daily, you hear nearly the entire bible in 2 years. Do you hear the entire bible at your church read on Sundays at your church service, ever? Or do you hear mostly the new testament and little of the OT? Maybe yes and maybe no. So I would contend that Catholics know the written Word of God better than you think.

Catholics and Orthodox believe that we receive Jesus Christ in the Eucharist at Mass, certainly every Sunday but we can also do so every day of the week. Part of our being embassadors is to tell you that the Gospel is clear that Jesus gives us his true body and blood as a sacrament of the new convenant. He repeats his words to his disciples and those following him and many leave him. Unlike other times when he gives parables and people are confused, he does not correct himself. The bread of life discourse in John 6 is clear, and the early church believed it as has 2000 years of Christendom with the exception of some protestants. Martin Luther believed in it too, although he said how the bread and wine became the blood and body of Christ he did not know. So your interpretation of the Gospel that you do have is wrong which is sad enough and you are missing the gift of Jesus in the Eucharist which is double sad. .

In both cases above, the tradition of man removed the books and spread the belief, only since the reformation, that Jesus was only speaking symbolically in John 6. If in the OT, God gave Israel food from heaven in the manna, would the NT fulfillment in Jesus Christ be less by being symbolic? If you believe so, this is not knowing the Gospel.

30 So they said to him, “What sign can you do, that we may see and believe in you? What can you do?m
31 Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written:n
‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
32 So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.o

[1] No, God the Holy Spirit gave us the gospel of the grace of God.
[2] The four gospels, Mt, Mk, Lu and Jn, tell us of the earthly ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ to Israel. John 6:63 sums up the “eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood.”
Joh 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. (KJV) The eating and drinking is an idiom meaning to believe. The Body of Christ is not in view in John 6.
[3] Sign? The Jews are the “sign” people, in this dispensation of the grace of God [Eph. 3:2} we walk by faith and not by sight [2 Cor. 5:7]. We are not looking for a “sign.”
[4] The gospel of the grace of God is the gospel that saves in this dispensation. Notice what Paul writes: 1Co 15:1 ¶ Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; (KJV)
¶ 1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. (KJV)
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; (KJV)
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: (KJV. Notice in vs 2 he says that it is the gospel “By which also ye are saved.”
When we believe this gospel we are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ - 1 Cor. 12:13. And the Holy Spirit seals us until the day of redemption of our body.
So, you now have heard the gospel of the grace of God. I pray that you believe it with all your heart and soul.
Grace and Peace,
QC

 

[wcknight]

When I was in Lutheran confirmation, it was explained to me that the Church had appropriated God’s authority and glory for their own. My pastor told me that that’s why for over a thousand years Catholic laity weren’t supposed to read the Bible without a Church-approved guide, since one might discover that God’s church is properly run by God, not the pope. Basically what it came down to was that they had introduced doctrines in their own interest rather than remaining true to God and Christ.

I’m not Lutheran anymore, though.

Most protestants fail to mention that there were very few Bibles floating around… monks used to have to hand copy bibles… the printing press was not invented yet, and the vast majority of the folks could not read anyway…

The laity may have been discouraged to read scriptures but mainly because most folks were illiterate and who knows what sorts of misinterpretation there would have been.

Just look at the situation with protestant denomintaions now. People CAN read ‘supposedly’, and there are many printed bibles readily available, yet there are 25000 or 35000 different denominations each with their own version of what the Truth should be.

 

[OCCathFemale]

Originally Posted by snarflemike
If a Protestant claims Catholics are going to hell, what exactly is their reasoning? What scripture are they relying on?

To put the question another way, what is required to be saved, that Catholics do not do/have?

Jesus said that you must be born again!
this is what is required to be saved.
This is where salvation begins.
When you as a catholic cannot tell what it means to have experianced this then this is why it is doubtful that you are really saved.

This is why some protestants think catholics are going to hell.

For those protestants this is where salvation begins.

They believe unless you are born again like Jesus said that even though you may be more faithful to tradition and the scriptures then Nicodemus was that you are still dead and in trespasses and sins.
That what you are doing is saying that the way Jesus said to be saved is not good enough for you and you are climbing up another way. Which is like treading the body and blood of Jesus under foot to them.
Now try not to get all defensive I am trying to answer your question as best that I can. Iam trying to be as straight forward as I know how.

Hello Hope7,

I read your post and you indicated you were interested in the Church but did not believe everything taught.

I can identify with your thinking because I was raised Lutheran then I entered the Catholic Church. As a protestant, I had a different mindset and my sister who is investigating the Church also, is going through this same thinking process.

As a protestant, when I picked or confirmed a church, I would kind of go through the “list” of beliefs and say, OK, I agree with X from this church and Y from this church and A, B, and C from the other church, but Oh, no, I agree with A, B, and C, but certainly not D from that one, so that church is out.

But as I studied history and theology in more depth, I found that my mindset changed. In the Catholic Church, we recognize there are certain things that are truthes and certain requirements in behavior. And they are all given to us by the Church. Once you investigate history and natural law and theology, (I cannot post that process here it’s too long) and come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church fulfills the requirements started by Jesus, then even if you don’t agree with one of those truthes, you can still accept that the Church has the truth and then you just need to pray to understand it. I will give you an example. I didn’t fully understand the position of our blessed mother until many years after I entered the Church. I also didn’t follow the plans for marriage (I was kind of a feminist and I didn’t see why I should get married at all and I didn’t plan on entering an order of nuns) and some other things I didn’t fully understand, like contraception. But I did understand that the Church had the truth and I prayed to more fully understand it. PLEASE DON’T SIDETRACK THIS DISCUSSION TO MARY, CONTRACEPTION OR MARRIAGE - THESE ARE JUST EXAMPLES OF THINGS IT TOOK ME A WHILE TO UNDERSTAND IN DEPTH. Our church is a moderately complex church to understand and it takes a while if you have not been brought up in it.

My sister is going through the same thing with a couple of issues (abortion and homosexuality) but she is beginning to understand that Catholics can be Catholic and still not completely fulfill all the requirements of behavior and understanding as long as they accept that the Church has the truth because of its founding, and as long as they are trying to pray to be illuminated so they can understand all these things.

An example is Dietrich von Hildebrandt, who entered the Church “on faith” and later understood many specific doctrines and later wrote many wonderful books about the faith.

So as a protestant, I thought that I had to fulfill all the “rules” and if not, there was no point in me being in the church, but that doesn’t apply to the Catholic church.

Does that make sense? There is a good article called Confession of a Roman Catholic by Paul Whitcomb that says all this better than I can summarize here, and more.

Please read the link and form your opinion: olrl.org/apologetics/confessrc.shtml.

I hope it may be helpful to you. I will keep you in my prayers.

 

[OCCathFemale]

QUOTE: Originally Posted by Nabooru
When I was in Lutheran confirmation, it was explained to me that the Church had appropriated God’s authority and glory for their own. My pastor told me that that’s why for over a thousand years Catholic laity weren’t supposed to read the Bible without a Church-approved guide, since one might discover that God’s church is properly run by God, not the pope. Basically what it came down to was that they had introduced doctrines in their own interest rather than remaining true to God and Christ.

I’m not Lutheran anymore, though.

Yes, I understand this. I was taught the same thing. I don’t think their motives are bad, I think they simply have not been taught about the Catholic Church in very much detail.

I found this with many statements I was taught. They all seemed so very logical on the surface, but once one started considering them in detail and in light of the scriptures and the teachings of the Church, there were a lot of holes.

I think the solution is to rely on priests to explain the Catholic Church, not on protestant teachers because they just don’t have the same level of studying about the Church - and we should not expect them to - as a priest does. But because of this they should not presume to teach about the Church, either - rather it would be better if they referred their questions to a priest. But I think they don’t want to do this, because they have a deep seated feeling of extreme scrupulosity and rationalism against the church so they think the Church is somehow dangerous because it puts itself before God. I found this all very sad since to me, once I studied the Church, all those fears became unfounded.

 

[Porknpie]

Originally posted by QuickCat

[1] No, God the Holy Spirit gave us the gospel of the grace of God.

History records the Catholic church giving us the biblical canon at the councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) to have a defined set of readings to be used at Mass. Jesus is the groom and the Catholic church is his bride, protecting it from the gates of hell until the end of time. But the Holy Spirit too works through its members in the church to guide them.

[2] The four gospels, Mt, Mk, Lu and Jn, tell us of the earthly ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ to Israel. John 6:63 sums up the “eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood.”
Joh 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. (KJV) The eating and drinking is an idiom meaning to believe. The Body of Christ is not in view in John 6.

Jesus was either a very poor teacher or you have to show how 12 disciples didn’t understand him as they spread the news all over the world that his body and blood is actually present in the Eucharist. My previous post explains 63.

[3] Sign? The Jews are the “sign” people, in this dispensation of the grace of God [Eph. 3:2} we walk by faith and not by sight [2 Cor. 5:7]. We are not looking for a “sign.”

It’s not “a sign”, the Eucharist is a “sign of” the new covenant.

[4] The gospel of the grace of God is the gospel that saves in this dispensation. Notice what Paul writes: 1Co 15:1 ¶ Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; (KJV)
¶ 1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. (KJV)
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; (KJV)
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: (KJV. Notice in vs 2 he says that it is the gospel “By which also ye are saved.”
When we believe this gospel we are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ - 1 Cor. 12:13. And the Holy Spirit seals us until the day of redemption of our body.
So, you now have heard the gospel of the grace of God. I pray that you believe it with all your heart and soul.
Grace and Peace,
QC

St Paul when speaking of “Gospel” is referring to the sayings or teachings of Christ. He wrote this letter in 56 AD. None of the 4 gospels were written that early and the biblical canon, the Catholic bible, was not established for another ~340 years. In using the word “scriptures”, he was referring to the old testament prophecies of the Messiah as the new testament did not exist.

God bless you QC.

 

[QuickCat]

Jesus was either a very poor teacher or you have to show how 12 disciples didn’t understand him as they spread the news all over the world that his body and blood is actually present in the Eucharist. My previous post explains 63.

It’s not “a sign”, the Eucharist is a “sign of” the new covenant.

St Paul when speaking of “Gospel” is referring to the sayings or teachings of Christ. He wrote this letter in 56 AD. None of the 4 gospels were written that early and the biblical canon, the Catholic bible, was not established for another ~340 years. In using the word “scriptures”, he was referring to the old testament prophecies of the Messiah as the new testament did not exist.

God bless you QC.

[1] The Lord Jesus Christ told the 12 of His pending death, burial and resurrection in Luke 18:31-34. And they “understood none of these things, and the meaning was hidden from them.” Even after His resurrection they still didn’t know that He was to rise from the dead. Joh 20:9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. The true meaning of the cross was first revealed to Paul. 1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (KJV)
for one is God, one also is mediator of God and of men, the man Christ Jesus, (1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (KJV)
[2] The Lord Jesus Christ and the 12 were preaching the “gospel of the kingdom” to Israel during His earthly ministry - Mt. 4:23; 10:5-10; 9:35. This is the gospel that proclaimed the “kingdom at hand” for the Jews.
[3] The gospel of the grace of God [the true meaning of the cross] was first revealed to Paul.
[4] The “New Covenant” will be made with Israel - Jer. 31:31ff
BTW, it doesn’t really matter when the 4 gospels were written, they still recorded the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ to Israel. Mt. 15:24; Romans 15:8.
Grace and Peace,
QC

 

[Porknpie]

Jesus was either a very poor teacher or you have to show how 12 disciples didn’t understand him as they spread the news all over the world that his body and blood is actually present in the Eucharist. My previous post explains 63.

QuickCat - how do you account for the belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

[1] The true meaning of the cross was first revealed to Paul.

Read Luke 24:13. St. Paul’s conversion wasn’t until after St. Stephen was martyred.

[2] The Lord Jesus Christ and the 12 were preaching the “gospel of the kingdom” to Israel during HGis earthly ministry - Mt. 4:23; 10:5-10; 9:35. This is the gospel that proclaimed the “kingdom at hand” for the Jews.

Yes but Messianic prophesy included salvation for Jews and Gentiles. Isaiah 52:10:

The LORD has bared his holy arm
in the sight of all the nations;
All the ends of the earth can see
the salvation of our God.

[3] The gospel of the grace of God [the true meaning of the cross] was first revealed to Paul.

Again, read Luke 24 beginning with verse 13.

[4] The “New Covenant” will be made with Israel - Jer. 31:31

BTW, it doesn’t really matter when the 4 gospels were written…

It only matters if the word “gospel” is mis-understood in scripture and that doing so leads to error in understanding scripture. The new testament canon wasn’t put together until the 390s so the early writers including St Paul were referring to the spoken word (tradition) or the old testament.

Peace in Christ!

 

[QuickCat]

Read Luke 24:13. St. Paul’s conversion wasn’t until after St. Stephen was martyred. This verse says nothing about Saul’s conversion. What’s your point?

Yes but Messianic prophesy included salvation for Jews and Gentiles. Isaiah 52:10:

The Gentiles, according to prophecy, were to be blessed * through Israel. But now Israel has fallen and through their fall Gentiles are being saved.

Ro 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. (KJV)

Again, read Luke 24 beginning with verse 13.

Lu 24:13 ¶ And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. (KJV), sorry, I don’t quite understand why you wanted me to read this verse. Please enlighten.

QC*

 

[garysibio]

If a Protestant claims Catholics are going to hell, what exactly is their reasoning? What scripture are they relying on?

To put the question another way, what is required to be saved, that Catholics do not do/have?

Probably as stupid as the reasoning of those Catholics who think that all Protestants are going to Hell.

 

[Porknpie]

Hi Cat. Again thank you for posting.

You said (I added the bold)

[1] The true meaning of the cross was first revealed to Paul.

I said

Read Luke 24:13. St. Paul’s conversion wasn’t until after St. Stephen was martyred. ( I was clearer in my second comment to read beginning with v13, sorry)

You said

This verse says nothing about Saul’s conversion. What’s your point?

I say… Luke 24:27 describes Jesus explaining the scriptures regarding his death and resurrection to Cleopas and one other. Jesus then continued to open the minds of the disciples to scripture soon after. So Peter and the disciples understood the OT scripture and Jesus fulfillment of it immediately after his appearance back on earth. We both agree It was a few years later when St Paul converted. Paul was not the first to understand the Jesus’ death on the cross. Jesus did however, first appear to Simon before the other disciples.

1. Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them what referred to him in all the scriptures

44 He said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and in the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled.”
45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures.
46 And he said to them, “Thus it is written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day
47 and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Cat, I’m still waiting for an answer to the question on the Eucharist. Either you are right on v63 and Jesus failed to explain it well to the disciples or my answer to v63 is correct and you have it wrong. Or do you have another explanation how the belief in the Eucharist went world-wide with the 12 disciples…as they went out and preached the good news as Jesus instructed them?

You said

[2] The four gospels, Mt, Mk, Lu and Jn, tell us of the earthly ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ to Israel. John 6:63 sums up the “eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood.”
Joh 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. (KJV) The eating and drinking is an idiom meaning to believe. The Body of Christ is not in view in John 6.

I said
Jesus was either a very poor teacher or you have to show how 12 disciples didn’t understand him as they spread the news all over the world that his body and blood is actually present in the Eucharist. My previous post explains 63.

 

[QuickCat]

i believe people from all sorts of Christian denominations are going to heaven according to whats in their hearts.

Hey Meagan: We are neighbors, I live in Arkansas. Meagan, the human heart is desparately wicked - Jer 17:9 - The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (KJV). Only folks who have believed on the Lord Jesus Christ are going to heaven. Nothing else will suffice - Acts 4:12 -Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (KJV). I pray that you are trusting only in Him to get to heaven. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
Hope this helps you.
QC

 

[QuickCat]

Hi Cat. Again thank you for posting.

You said (I added the bold)

I said

Read Luke 24:13. St. Paul’s conversion wasn’t until after St. Stephen was martyred. ( I was clearer in my second comment to read beginning with v13, sorry)

You said

I say… Luke 24:27 describes Jesus explaining the scriptures regarding his death and resurrection to Cleopas and one other. Jesus then continued to open the minds of the disciples to scripture soon after. So Peter and the disciples understood the OT scripture and Jesus fulfillment of it immediately after his appearance back on earth. We both agree It was a few years later when St Paul converted. Paul was not the first to understand the Jesus’ death on the cross. Jesus did however, first appear to Simon before the other disciples.

1. Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them what referred to him in all the scriptures

44 He said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and in the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled.”
45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures.
46 And he said to them, “Thus it is written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day
47 and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Cat, I’m still waiting for an answer to the question on the Eucharist. Either you are right on v63 and Jesus failed to explain it well to the disciples or my answer to v63 is correct and you have it wrong. Or do you have another explanation how the belief in the Eucharist went world-wide with the 12 disciples…as they went out and preached the good news as Jesus instructed them?

Verse 63 IS the answer! Our Lord had just told the Jews that they must believe … Joh 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. (KJV) Did the Lord change this to eating His flesh and drinking His blood? Not as all! Some form of the word “believe” is found some 85 times in John. Vs 63 is so clear that flesh is of no profit, it is the “Spirit” that makes alive!
QC

 

[QuickCat]

Hi Cat. Again thank you for posting.

you are right on v63 and Jesus failed to explain it well to the disciples or my answer to v63 is correct and you have it wrong. Or do you have another explanation how the belief in the Eucharist went world-wide with the 12 disciples…as they went out and preached the good news as Jesus instructed them?

The 12 didn’t understand everything the Lord told them. A case in point is Luke 18:31-34 where our Lord told them about his pending death, burial and resurrection and “they understood none of these things…” You say they went into all the world preaching John 6? Well that would be strange in light of the fact that they agreed to confine their ministry to Israel in Gal. 2:9. They gave Paul the “right hand of fellowship” on this. The 12 were ministers to the circumcision. Their future is found in Mt. 19:28 [on the earth]. BTW, the “good news” that the Lord Jesus Christ taught them was about the coming kingdom for Israel on the earth - note Acts 1:3. That kingdom is foretold in a great many O.T. Scriptures and we know from Luke 24 that our Lord taught the eleven from those Scriptures. The eleven make it their first order of business after the Lord’s ascendion to bring their number back up to twelve. Notice that Peter speaks only to Israel in early Acts and actually offers the kingdom to Israel in Acts 3:19-21. Hope this helps.
QC

I

 

[Porknpie]

Cat, I’m still waiting for an answer to the question on the Eucharist. Either you are right on v63 and Jesus failed to explain it well to the disciples or my answer to v63 is correct and you have it wrong. Or do you have another explanation how the belief in the Eucharist went world-wide with the 12 disciples…as they went out and preached the good news as Jesus instructed them?

Verse 63 IS the answer! Our Lord had just told the Jews that they must believe … Joh 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. (KJV) Did the Lord change this to eating His flesh and drinking His blood? Not as all! Some form of the word “believe” is found some 85 times in John. Vs 63 is so clear that flesh is of no profit, it is the “Spirit” that makes alive!
QC

Cat, I don’t want to put words in your mouth but as you believe Christ was only speaking symbolically and you disagree with the Catholic and Orthodox interpretation of v63, how do you account for the disciples going out and preaching that it was his actual body and blood present in the Eucharist? Was Jesus a very bad teacher or were the 12 disciples hard of hearing?

Below are some quotes from the very early church fathers. There are many more ECF quotes than this as well as scripture passages. A good website is scripturecatholic.com. We’re straying off topic so I’ll let you have the last word but I would appreciate hearing your response to the above question(s). God bless!

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

“But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).

“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body…He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: ‘I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,’ which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212).

 

[stewstew03]

Only folks who have believed on the Lord Jesus Christ are going to heaven.

What of those who have not heard the Gospel?