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,
And preterists believe that Satan is now bound also. Oh, and Nero was the anti-Christ even though he died two years before the destruction of Jerusalem. The Preterists are so off base with scripture and history it’s dificult to believe anyone with any sense at all would believe what they teach. We used to have a bunch of them here but don’t see many of them any more. I suppose scripture started to embaress them to much.
Well, I guess we know what you use for your beliefs rather than scripture. I’ve got news for you. Josephus was not inspired by the Holy Spirit and his views of the Jews and their beliefs is rather like listening to the MSM about the beliefs of Christians. He was a traitor to the Jews and the only survivor of a pact to commit suicide at Jotapata. To take his word for Jewish belief is risky at best.
“We need not shrink from admitting that candles, like incense and lustral water, were commonly employed in pagan worship and the rites paid to the dead. But the Church from a very early period took them into her service, just as she adopted many other things indifferent in themselves, which seemed proper to enhance the splendor of religious ceremonial. We must not forget that most of these adjuncts to worship, like music, lights, perfumes, ablutions, floral decorations, canopies, fans, screens, bells, vestments etc. were not identified with any idolatrous cult in particular; but they were common to almost all cults” (Catholic Encyclopedia, III, 246.)
“When we give or receive Christmas gifts; or hang green wreaths in our homes and churches, how many of us know that we are probably observing pagan customs...the god, Woden, in Norse Mythology, descends upon the earth yearly between December 25th and January 6th to bless mankind...But pagan though they be, they are beautiful customs. They help inspire us with the spirit of 'good will to men', even as the sublime service of our Church reminds us of the ‘peace on earth’ which the babe of Bethlehem came to bestow” (Externals of the Catholic Church, 140).
Catholics can’t deny that the RCC has incorporated pagan practices into its practices. The RCC itself admits that it does.
You've changed your story:
The faithful city was Jerusalem. The harlot of Revelation 17
Sorry; but my lyin' eyes trump this.
Whole lotta stuff in this claim.
Cute!
Can you enlighten me as to what happened?
Mary is still dead.
Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm. A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.
Daniel 12:2
Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.
I don’t know either. Maybe someone who knows can enlighten us.
Yep!!! That’s Israel. Mary is still dead.
The “more’ is not much more.
He was reading the NT, sitting in a rear pew of the church, is all he told anyone that he was doing.
“No. Israel’s people were, and this is whom the prophecy is directed against: the priesthood (harlot) and the people.
You’ve changed your story:
The faithful city was Jerusalem. The harlot of Revelation 17”
Nice attempt to twist my words and take them out of context. How dishonest of you.
“Sorry; but my lyin’ eyes trump this.”
It’s OK. The Jews of Jesus’ day were looking for something in a Messiah their lyin’ eyes could understand, too.
They didn’t get it. Nor, apparently, do you.
>> “You know nothing about me or what I belong to...” <<
.
I know what you have posted to be your beliefs, and to the minutest detail they are the beliefs of the false cult of Replacement Theology.
This cult will guide millions through the broad gate to destruction.
It is revealing that you consider analysis of your posts as attacks.
So are you a Seventh Day Adventist?
“Well, I guess we know what you use for your beliefs rather than scripture.”
Josephus confirms the truth of Jesus’s words. You deny them.
“I’ve got news for you. Josephus was not inspired by the Holy Spirit...”
The money-grubbing cabal of so-called Bible teachers and fiction writers that push the junk theology of Dispensationalism and Futurism are not either, yet you appear to believe them.
Go figure.
“We used to have a bunch of them here but don’t see many of them any more.”
I suspect it’s owing more to the Brown-shirt tactics of people, like you, who engage in relentless personal attacks rather than rational discussion.
You know you’re over the target when the flak gets heavy, and the flak is always heaviest whenever preterists threaten the comfortable, albeit wrong, teachings and interpretations of the dispensationalists and futurists.
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.