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,
John was a baptizer...never himself established a religion known as Baptist....the Baptist denomination sprang up in Amsterdam in 1609 founded by John Smythe.
John the Baptist indeed......
oh no, not just Luther, Storch & Munzer, Henry VIII, Simons, Calvin, Knox, Holland, Smythe, Jones, Fox, amman, Wesley brothers, London, Seabury, Otterbein & Boehn, Campbell brothers, Smith, Stone & Campbell, Ellen Washington, Richmond, Wm B. London, Charles Taze Russell, Mary Baker Eddy, Parkham, Aglipay, Manalo, Aimee Semple McPherson, Chuck Smith, Rick Warren Etc etc etc
they all have several things in common, being Pope is not one of them.
of course they are Christian, some better than others, but ALL are incomplete.
no, because it is the truth and the truth is endless. There CANNOT POSSIBLY BE MORE THAN ONE, COMPLETE, TRUE Christian church.... there can be good, but incomplete ones, bad ones, blasphemous ones, but only 1 true and complete....if there were more than one, they would be exactly the same, therefore one.
what on earth did I say that made YOU smile?????
you don't believe that Jesus was God????????
you don't believe that Mary was the mother of Jesus?????
you are a better interpreter of scripture than 2,000 years of Catholic learning nd teaching???????
WOW
that is precious since without Catholicism you wouldn't even know that He existed....think about it!!
he was a rabble-rousing son of a carpenter living in an obscure town in the middle east and was executed for being a troublemaker....
and you would have heard of Him.....how??
do you realize, and you will if you think for just a moment, that for the majority of time until the modern ages, all religion was taught and learned verbally....who had books, who could read them, where were they stored and who had access to them, virtually noone could afford the books that existed so the verbal word anf traditions paid a MAJOR part in the growth of Christianity.
Few, if any, modern people realize that. It’s one of the troubles we have thinking about the ancient and not so ancient past. We imagine that things as they are now are things as they always were.
Ignorance is bliss.
Verbal “traditions” are nothing but complex lies.
That is why Yeshua rejected traditions in favor of the written word.
If its not written, its not from Yehova, its from Satan.
Yehova has depended on the written word exclusively for at least 3500 years.
Typical dribble from a catholic.
People knew Yeshua existed for 3 centuries before the catholic abomination came along and set out to crush The Way.
Yeshua’s sheep reject the lies of catholicism out of hand.
oh, good grief.....could Peter read and write....he was a fisherman and had no need to do so...besides, there were no books for him to read and nothing to write about. I'd wager that virtually none of the apostles could either read or write....it just wasn't necessary in those days except within the government and perhaps the Jewish religious community.. They had town criers in early history because they didn't have newspapers because noone could read.
various letters to this group or that group could have been dictated to a scribe, by the apostles, and read to the recipients by a scribe in their area....the average person, at that time, could neither read nor write.
Christians that existed at the time of Christ were the same ones who, shortly after, became known as Catholics....probably within the first century. If the word of Christ was spread by anyone, it was by them and the Catholic church, as a church, existed long before 3 centuries....St. Peter was the fisrt Pope....remember now??
No need to reason a simple message of
Repent ye, and believe the gospel. Mark 1:15
I believed it as a child and it is still what I believe. And that is all someone need know regarding salvation. Thereafter, the Holy Spirit works in the life of the believer and brings them knowledge and wisdom of the Lord (sanctification).
It seems those who take pride in their intellect really know very little of God’s kingdom.
The word of Yehova is literally true in every way...Interesting convolution.Oh. Jesus lied, then.
Poster says Jesus is true in every way, and to your mind that shows that Jesus lied?
Jesus never lied. You will find that truth throughout the Bible.
There was no other relevant text in the post you replied to.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Is that a bad thing, Elsie?
What I am drawn to are souls in need of Jesus...not a mass or a eucharist or anything else.
But even Jesus withdrew to recharge, so to speak.
Perhaps I am different than most on these boards. I’ve no interest in defending Protestant or Catholic or whatever. I simply want them to know Him as I do.
>> “Christians that existed at the time of Christ were the same ones who, shortly after, became known as Catholics” <<
.
No!
Absolutely not. They were the ones that Rome sought to destroy. Rome is the whore in scarlet and Purple. Just about everyone recognizes that, and the big protestant churches are her daughters.
Peter was no pope; that is an insult to his memory. The pope has always been Satan’s point man on Earth.
Just look at the vile disgusting conspicuous accumulation of Worldly wealth at the vatican and you can see Satan’s face glowing red.
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.