Posted on 09/17/2013 8:25:21 PM PDT by jodyel
"Unless You Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and Drink His Blood You Have No Life In You"
Are these words of Jesus from John 6:53 to be taken literally or figuratively? The Roman Catholic Church teaches the context of John chapter six and the above headlined verse 53 are literal. Thus Jesus is giving absolute and unconditional requirements for eternal life. In fact, this literal interpretation forms the foundation for Rome's doctrine of transubstantiation -- the miraculous changing of bread and wine into the living Christ, His body and blood, soul and divinity. Each Catholic priest is said to have the power to call Jesus down from the right hand of the Father when he elevates the wafer and whispers the words "Hoc corpus meus est." Catholics believe as they consume the lifeless wafer they are actually eating and drinking the living body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is a vital and important step in their salvation and a doctrine they must believe and accept to become a Catholic.
If priests indeed have the exclusive power to change finite bread and wine into the body and blood of the infinite Christ, and if indeed consuming His body and blood is necessary for salvation, then the whole world must become Catholic to escape the wrath of God. On the other hand, if Jesus was speaking in figurative language then this teaching becomes the most blasphemous and deceptive hoax any religion could impose on its people. There is no middle ground. Therefore the question of utmost importance is -- Was the message Jesus conveyed to the Jewish multitude to be understood as literal or figurative? Rome has never presented a good argument for defending its literal interpretation. Yet there are at least seven convincing reasons why this passage must be taken figuratively.
Counterfeit Miracle
There is no Biblical precedent where something supernatural occurred where the outward evidence indicated no miracle had taken place. (The wafer and wine look, taste and feel the same before and after the supposed miracle of transubstantion). When Jesus changed water into wine, all the elements of water changed into the actual elements of wine.
Drinking Blood Forbidden
The Law of Moses strictly forbade Jews from drinking blood (Leviticus 17:10-14) A literal interpretation would have Jesus teaching the Jews to disobey the Mosaic Law. This would have been enough cause to persecute Jesus. (See John 5:16)
Biblical Disharmony
When John 6:53 is interpreted literally it is in disharmony with the rest of the Bible. "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you," gives no hope of eternal life to any Christian who has not consumed the literal body and blood of Christ. It opposes hundreds of Scriptures that declare justification and salvation are by faith alone in Christ.
Produces Dilemma
It appears that the "eating and drinking" in verse 6:54 and the "believing" in verse 6:40 produce the same result - eternal life. If both are literal we have a dilemma. What if a person "believes" but does not "eat or drink"? Or what if a person "eats and drinks" but does not "believe?" This could happen any time a non-believer walked into a Catholic Church and received the Eucharist. Does this person have eternal life because he met one of the requirements but not the other? The only possible way to harmonize these two verses is to accept one verse as figurative and one as literal.
Figurative In Old Testament
The Jews were familiar with "eating and drinking" being used figuratively in the Old Testament to describe the appropriation of divine blessings to one's innermost being. It was God's way of providing spiritual nourishment for the soul. (See Jeremiah 15:16; Isaiah 55:1-3; and Ezekiel 2:8, 3:1)
Jesus Confirmed
Jesus informed His disciples there were times when He spoke figuratively (John 16:25) and often used that type of language to describe Himself. The Gospel of John records seven figurative declarations Jesus made of Himself -- "the bread of life" (6:48), "the light of the world" (8:12), "the door" (10:9), "the good shepherd" (10:11), "the resurrection and the life" (11:25), "the way, the truth and the life" (14:6), and "the true vine" (15:1). He also referred to His body as the temple (2:19).
Words Were Spiritual
Jesus ended this teaching by revealing "the words I have spoken to you are spirit" (6:63). As with each of the seven miracles in John's Gospel, Jesus uses the miracle to convey a spiritual truth. Here Jesus has just multiplied the loaves and fish and uses a human analogy to teach the necessity of spiritual nourishment. This is consistent with His teaching on how we are to worship God. "God is Spirit and His worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24). As we worship Christ He is present spiritually, not physically. In fact, Jesus can only be bodily present at one place at one time. His omnipresence refers only to His spirit. It is impossible for Christ to be bodily present in thousands of Catholic Churches around the world.
When Jesus is received spiritually, one time in the heart, there is no need to receive him physically,
“If you want the links, do your own search. The rest of us have no need for these catholic nonsense games.”
In other words, you cannot substantiate your accusations, and it is *not* true that any Catholic has referred to the posting of scripture as “hate.”
Lying is not a good thing, generally speaking.
“Your haughty, arrogant personal attack shows that it is your understanding that is undeveloped.”
In the protestant dictionary, a haughty, arrogant person is one who has made a reasoned argument that a protestant can’t recover from. The only thing my mild, thoughtful response shows is a high level of patience.
“We will be ‘born again’ into our new bodies at the Last Trump at Yom Teruah, at the First Resurrection.”
Sorry, I didn’t realize that you were a cultist.
Ahh, so good to know that the usual suspects are still here.
ROTFLMAO. And to think I used to be a Protestant. Happily I was never anti-Catholic, or anti-Fundamentalist, or anti-Pentecostal, or anti-Jewish or anti most other beliefs.
Islam on the other hand is a whole different kettle of fish.
Protestants simply do not have the intellectual rigor to engage in an honest debate.
Coming from a papist-cultist, that is a real belly burster.
Good thing you never read Yehova’s word; who knows what cult you’d assign him to.
Please go to Askmoses.com Ask for one of the Rabbis that is a historical expert and ask him what their understanding is of the Passover as a remembrance.
The Jewish people view a "Remembrance vastly different than we do. And Christ was speaking to men that had been Jews all their lives and had participated in numerous Passovers.
Its unfortunate that you don’t spend much time on the religion forum, or you would realize what a fool you make of yourself by denying the words of your fellow Papists.
One of your papist pals posted a whole thread to demand that we stop posting catholic hate scriptures. (this week)
Save yourself!
I posted the same “Jewish” blessing that Yeshua invoked before he broke the bread.
Its a remembrance that goes all the way back to the MelekZedek and Abraham.
It’ll be quite a show for you when you get to look up and see all those “cultists” flying up to meet Yeshua and his angels, as they are taken to the marriage supper.
You might even say “Interesting Times.”
“One of your papist pals posted a whole thread to demand that we stop posting catholic hate scriptures. (this week)”
I very much doubt that.
Christianity starts with Truth.
“One of your papist pals posted a whole thread to demand that we stop posting catholic hate scriptures. (this week)”
I very much doubt that.
Christianity starts with Truth.
Thanks, snipe, but I just speak of Jesus and let them make up their own mind. And the Holy Spirit will be the one to instruct them after they are born again. He leads them where he wants them, not me. I don’t “persuade” anyone to do anything. I tell them of Christ and they choose Him or not.
It will all be worth the effort if just one person is saved because of these discussions. The Catholic members who post here are entrenched in their religion and cannot see beyond it, but one never knows when the Spirit is working and convicting. We are called to preach Jesus and that is exactly what I do...the rest is up to Him.
They went in and preached the Gospel, but they did not stay in the synagogues and make them their permanent home of worship. Let them come out of the RCC and minister to Catholics. I think you would be very hard pressed to find a Catholic church that would let a born again former Catholic come in and preach boldly as Paul did in the synagogues. Not to mention staying inside would not be conducive to spiritual growth in the new believer.
I don’t believe the Spirit would ever lead someone born again back into a church like the RCC as a permanent place of worship...Paul was not taken to a synagogue after his encounter with Christ....he was taken away for three years to Arabia and taught by Jesus Himself. There would be no spiritual gain whatsoever for a new believer in staying where he was converted. One must be grounded in the faith and this could not happen in the RCC. This is why all the former Catholics come out of it and yet are still able to minister to Catholics.
I do not believe there are born again believers in a Catholic church. And those who say they are do not know the meaning of born again. When I listen to the testimonies of former Catholics who came out of the RCC, it is such a stark contrast between what they had before and what they have after the RCC.
God would not leave them in a place of spiritual deadness.
http://youngkerux.wordpress.com/tag/apostle-peter/
Since it is not unusual for someone to speak in the synagogue or lead in the reading, the Lord Jesus and the Apostle Paul took that opportunity to preach and teach in the synagogue. The Lord Jesus would regularly enter a synagogue in his preaching ministry and consequently earned the reputation as a “teacher” especially after teaching with distinct authority unlike the scribes (Mark 1:21, 22). Unfortunately, the people only thought of him as a good teacher and not as the Messiah Himself. The Apostle Paul reasoned, persuaded, disputed, and spoke boldly in the synagogues city after city. One of the fruits of this labor was Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:26). Both the Lord Jesus and the Apostle Paul took the opportunity in their cultural setting to minister to people’s needs and to preach the Gospel.
>> “Christianity starts with Truth.” <<
.
I thought you were talking about catholicism.
Thanks, metmom....I just could not get beyond the stupidity, and desperation, of that statement.
They really are desperate to believe that and it breaks my heart.
No worries...all are welcome even if we disagree.
God bless you,
jodyel
Totally stand by my first post to this person.
Now I will leave him to you guys.
Gotta love it! Not!
Thanks for the FYI regarding the Jewish betrothal ritual. The symbolism is amazing!
now I realize why the bible warns against self interpretation...pathetic
>> “now I realize why the bible warns against self interpretation” <<
.
Scripture ref?
Don’t worry, we’re not holding our breath.
There is no such warning; only the warning Paul gave about the catholics and their “other Jesus.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.