“Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.”
“So to be consistent with the literal meaning, you must contend that unless one believes and receives the “Real Presence” then they have neither spiritual nor eternal life. “
Why would a protestant who believes that the universe was literally created in EXACTLY six days - expect that the words quoted as coming directly from Christ’s mouth be figurative ???
As a Catholic that is exactly what we believe because we take Christ at His word......
For the a Greater Glory of God
So to be consistent with the literal meaning, you must contend that unless one believes and receives the “Real Presence” then they have neither spiritual nor eternal life. “
As a Catholic that is exactly what we believe because we take Christ at His word....
Then while being consistent, explain how you are not denying V2, that properly baptized Prots have the life-giving Holy Spirit as redeemed souls?
Why would a protestant who believes that the universe was literally created in EXACTLY six days - expect that the words quoted as coming directly from Christ’s mouth be figurative ???
You tell me. What would a Catholic who believes the Lord was teaching that spiritual and eternal life is gained by eating human flesh with the blood - otherwise forbidden, (Lv. 19:26) while even physical eating is nowhere shown to give spiritual life, by faith in the gospel does, while to live by Christ is to lives as He did by the Father: Jn., 6:57) - not believe David when he distinctly called water the blood of men, and would not drink it, but poured it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord, as it is forbidden to drink blood?
Be consistent with your all-or-nothing hermeneutic you impose on us.
And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the of the well of Beth–lehem, which is by the gate! And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew out of the well of Beth–lehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless but . And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives ? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men. (2 Samuel 23:15-17)
And or why will Catholic refuse* to believe the word of God literally when it clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)
And or that the Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)
And or when David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)
And or when Jeremiah proclaimed, Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)
And or when Ezekiel was told, “eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 3:1)
And or when (in a phrase similar to the Lord’s supper) John is commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )
And since the Lord said that “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me,” (John 6:57) and He said man should “live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God - quoting Scripture, and that His “meat was to do the will of Him that sent Me,” (Mt. 44:; Jn. 4:34) and that “the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life,” and that souls are only shown receiving life by believing the gospel message,” (Eph. 1:13) and the Word in general is what builds one up, (Acts 20:32) then why will not Catholic even allow that the Lord was referring to “eating” and “drinking” figuratively, as believing on and obeying the Word made flesh in order to gain life and live by Christ?
Especially since John abounds with figurative language and contrasting use of the temporal earthly physical to refer to the eternal heavenly spiritual.
Moreover, they are also inconsistent by rejecting other uses of figurative language in John, consistent with Jn. 6, as being literal,
• In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.
• In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.
• In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.
• In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14) — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.
• In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive. (John 7:38)
• In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.
• In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.
• In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.
*Don’t tell me cannibalism is forbidden, for a form of that is what Catholics engage in. hen the fearful Israelites exclaimed that the Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof;”
Endocannibalism is most often an expression of veneration of the dead, or the pursuit of consuming some esoteric aspect of the person, like the deceased’s wisdom.
The Fore peoples of Papua New Guinea had a strongly codified type of endocannibalism as part of funerary rites. In this tribe, women and children played the largest role in cannibalism among deceased Fore males. - http://people.howstuffworks.com/cannibalism2.htm
Alpers and Lindenbaum’s research conclusively demonstrated that kuru [neurological disorder] spread easily and rapidly in the Fore people due to their endocannibalistic funeral practices, in which relatives consumed the bodies of the deceased to return the “life force” of the deceased to the hamlet, a Fore societal subunit. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%28disease%29#Transmission
[There is a story of a Western business man in the last century who saw a Bible in the store of a client in New Guinea and remarked, “Don’t tell me you believe that nonsense!” The store owner calmly replied, “Sir, let assured you that if it were not for the Book which you called nonsense, my friends and I would be having you for dinner right now.”]