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,
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
>> “why do you keep calling Jesus Yeshua?” <<
.
Because that is his given name, the name by which he wishes to be called.
He was never once called “Jesus” when he walked the Earth. and for at least a century and a half after.
Jesus means absolutely nothing, it is just a third or fourth hand transliteration arising from sloth and ignorance. Yeshua is full of the meaning of his birth and purpose, it means Yehova Saves.
It is fitting of course that catholics would call him something other than his name, since they have no relationship whatsoever with him or his Father.
>> “Yes; to all three.
But in doing so; Jesus CLEARLY showed that He was ABOVE the LAW: that He CREATED the LAW.” <<
You surprise me LC!
You are categorically wrong.
Nothing that they did was contrary to Torah, or a ‘sin,’ and Yeshua humbled himself to Torah, and declared that Torah was to remain unchanged until all things are completed. So he was not above the law, but came in fulfillment of Torah and of the Spring Feasts.
He presented the law, but the law was not “created,” but naturally existed eternally, as the only stream of personal truth and integrity (the three commandments upon which all of the law hung).
Sorry about that. Posting at 3 in the morning isn’t my best thinking time.
“Totally stand by my first post to this person.”
How sad.
God gave us our reason for us to use. If faith without works is dead, then what is faith without reason?
“I thought you were talking about catholicism.”
You can post childish barbs; you can’t provide any substantiation of your accusations.
What’s childish is your constant stalking in denial of reality.
>> “ If faith without works is dead, then what is faith without reason?” <<
.
Reason is the pagan humanist’s favorite cry, to excape the word of Yehova.
One cannot reason their way to salvation.
Dang!
I fogot my...
--Catholic_wannabe_Dude(sorry!)
Catholics are so sad when they admit that a group of faceless men determine INFALLIBLE doctrine for them.
I knew that as soon as I pressed
| Post |
Won't go here, other than to say that 'the law' needs to be defined a bit more before I will get into a discussion about it.
The Law from the perspective of anyone but those practicing “Pharisaical Judaism” can only be the written Torah, but even that breaks down into the parts that affect everyone, and those that affect the various sub groups of Hebrews, and then there are also the covenant issues like circuncision.
The “oral Torah” is no more valid than the catholic “traditions.”
Your saying the College of Cardinals have no faces! That is crazy, all the ones I have met have faces.
“I agree that both were the man and woman were both guilty, but she was still subject o the penalty.”
So was the man. Why didn’t they drag him out to Jesus?
Jesus didn’t break the Law of Moses, they did. First, they failed to drag the man out to face judgment. Second, when He told them to stone her if they had not sinned, they failed to do so.
The story highlights the hypocrisy of those who were trying to trap Jesus on a point of the Law while missing the bigger point.
whiule there is certainly no comparison between the revolutionaries (you REFORM FROM WITHIN)and the muslims in their belief systems, they were, in fact, both attacking the only protectors of Christianity that existed at the time.....it doesn't matter who attacks your home, a muslim or a christian....you defend it with everything that you have.
it was said here that we were still under mosiac law....circumcision was required...Christians changed that....under mosiac law pork was a no-no, Christians changed that too....during the life of Christ....we were not under mosiac law.
"they" were the early Christians known shortly thereafter as Catholics.
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.