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,
Reading your posts makes me feel like taking a shower.
Where does the law say you can only provide the punishment if you have not sinned?
“Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.”
And, as always, protestants are allowed to make vicious personal slurs, while any defense against these slurs by Catholics is immediately slammed.
I think your refusal to admit your bias is worse than the bias itself. Although, down the years, your bias has led you to support theological leftism against the truth on many occasions, so maybe the bias really is worse.
When I see people so stupid and blind that they've swallowed the above quoted Satanic delusion I always pray that like Balaam they have an ass smarter than they are to bring them up short before they reach the damnation their love of lies is leading them to.
The satanic delusion is called the Roman Catholic “Church.”
The Whore in scarlet and purple.
Just look at the vatican.
“Where does the law say you can only provide the punishment if you have not sinned?”
It doesn’t. Go back and read the entire context of my post to you.
“The Whore in scarlet and purple.
Just look at the vatican.”
Luther’s propaganda. The Vatican has nothing whatsoever to do with that passage in Revelation 17.
Every competent Bible scholar is in agreement.
I did read it. Both should have been punished and Jesus should have let her be stoned. He violated the law.
“...Jesus should have let her be stoned. He violated the law.”
Then you missed the point as badly as the Pharisees did.
He didn’t stop them from stoning her! Their own consciences did! That was the point! No one is without sin EXCEPT Jesus, AND HE WAS NOT OBLIGED TO STONE HER, SINCE HE KNEW WHAT THEY WERE UP TO!
“Every competent Bible scholar is in agreement.”
With what? That the Vatican is the Harlot of Revelation 17, or that that view is nothing more than Luther’s propaganda against the Pope?
Because if you’re going to suggest that Revelation 17 is about the RCC, you’ve got a whole lot of other exegetical issues that would argue otherwise.
If you really believe that I missed the point than you were not following the whole conversation. Go back and read it from the beginning.
It has nothing to do with Luther.
Luther was in the dark like every other catholic.
The catholic ‘church’ and every other nicolaitan pagan humanist ‘church,’ including the vast majority of so-called protestant ‘churches’ are the Whore and her daughters.
Immersed in paganism, and humanism, and rejecting all that Yeshua commanded. The broad path.
“The catholic ‘church’ and every other nicolaitan pagan humanist ‘church,’ including the vast majority of so-called protestant ‘churches’ are the Whore and her daughters.”
Well, that’s a really wrong view of that passage, but I don’t have the time to go into it now. John wasn’t writing about events 2,000 years in the future: he was writing to seven churches in Asia about things that were about to happen. That alone takes the discussion out of the realm of the view you’ve shared.
Ok; post a picture of the present ones.
“It has nothing to do with Luther.”
Well actually, it does. Luther was the first to associate the Pope with “the antichrist.” His teaching became so popular, that the Roman Catholic Church began losing membership. A Jesuit by the name of Francesco Ribera was commissioned to come up with an eschatology that would effectively counter Luther’s. He invented “Futurism”, and that became the basis for Darby’s dispensationalism, which was made popular by Schofield.
But the truth is both Luther and Ribera were wrong. Revelation isn’t about the Pope and it isn’t about the future as we know it.
Uh huh....
They 'changed' NOTHING!
The letter in Acts 15 was written to GENTILES.
The word 'christian' can apply to Jews as well; but the LETTER was written to NON-Jews.
INCOMPLETE???
What the HELL does THAT mean?
If they elect me Pope, I would be a great one, I’m great at everything that I do!!!
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.