Why Protestants do not believe that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist?
Why Protestants do not believe that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist? All Catholics in the world believes that Jesus Christ is truly present in the appearance of bread and wine.
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread will live forever, and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood, abideth in me and I in him. " (John 6:51-56)
Is it not abundantly clear when Jesus says "for my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is true drink"?
- How Protestants (non-Catholic Christians) Interpret John 6: 51-56?
- Why do Protestants not believe in the Eucharist?
- Why is Catholic Bashers Protestants who claim to believe in the literal interpretation of Scripture?
- Who is saved: the Catholic priests in the religion founded Joke or pastors began their own church?
- Why do Catholics believe that bread, the body of Jesus becomes the Blood Soul and Divinity?
Who cares what they think Protestants or Roman Catholics or anyone else for that matter? We should care what God says. Apart from Christ, have found one without sin or error yet? Then care what God says His word is pure and has no error.
Since the Spirit of Christ or God only dwells in God's own people, how could natural foods have any effect or to that?
Why is it necessary to be present in the bread and wine, and if He is present in person?
Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so, the Spirit of God dwell in you. But if any man the Spirit of Christ, he is none of yours.
John 14:16 And I will pray the Father and He will give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth, whom the world can not receive, because it is not, nor knows him: but ye know him, because it dwells with you and be in you.
1Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God and that God's Spirit dwells in you?
6:19 What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
And many others …
It is quite absurd that God is actually the house with a person by his Spirit that he may need physical food!
Have you noticed how they have been left out the most important appointment when John verse 6? In other words, that are clearly misquoting.
Verse 63 is the spirit that raises beef profiteth nothing: the words you speak are spirit and life.
This according to John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but justice and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Luke 17:21 And they say, Lo here! or, there is! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Christ is saying clearly that is not the physical but the spiritual life that He is talking about. Only things of the Spirit can give life to the spirit. The words that he is being used to convey spiritual truth, namely that only through the cross, what are your flesh and blood, which we receive spiritual life. At that time had not really happened on the cross so that some people misunderstood him, John 6 / 62. His body was broken on the cross for us and his blood was shed for the forgiveness of our sins, the blood is the life of the body. That is what the breaking of bread and the cup of wine represents.
Through faith in the forgiveness of our sins by Christ's death on the cross and resurrection we receive the true saving faith, which is brought to us by the work of the Spirit of God who comes to bring to life and living us. Nothing less is acceptable to God. (Even in the passage indicates that Christ the new covenant, even less when they know God and be taught by God Himself - John 6:45 is written in the prophets, and taught to all of God. Everything man therefore that has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.
The reference is to the prophets, especially Jeremiah 31/31-33 mentioned several times in the New Testament.)
Then he refuses to take himself and the cross daily and follow Christ Lucas 9 / 23, to live in obedience to the Spirit and live in spiritual life instead of the old carnal self. Obviously, not a physical cross! How to carry a cross to do anything physical absolute fools of us but also be practical impossible?
These are all orders of God to put to death our old nature selfish. It is God's work and orders and we accept it and rely on the strengthening of the Spirit of God for us. We take the cross when exercising our option to accept the work of God in our lives and to choose the way of God more than we do.
If you think that changes the bread into the body and blood Christ came to be fooled by a ridiculous superstition by people who do not have God or Spirit and palm for a deceptive superstition to maintain control over you. That religion is all about its employees maintain their hold on you.
Although it seems a bit extreme and messy, call their bluff and vomit and see that, if proved that to you!
Do not be so silly.
Carefully examine the Scriptures and see.
God will show you if you search for the man and stop listening to men and what men say.
Let God speak through His word the Bible.
He also said that the water was alive, but I do not think I'm in the shower every day.
Lutherans do.
because they refuse to understand (at least those who refuse to understand).
The RCC has never been approved by God and is against God's justice. They are on the Eucharist dinkum and they think they have the truth when the truth is not in them.
Scripture quote is misquoted to suit your church doctrine, and all they're saying about it is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.You are committing the greatest sin against God by manipulating the word to say otherwise, instead of believing in it just as it is.
What Jesus was saying here was His flesh is the body that used to take away sins of the world when He was baptized by John the Baptist (John 1:20), and his blood means that the wages paid for our sins in Cross shedding His lifeblood, like the scapegoat in the Old Testament, died when the sins of the sons of Israel on the Day of Atonement.
The Eucharist should be a time to reflect on the righteous works of Jesus, His baptism (Meat) and blood on the Cross, this is the real meaning and not the lies of the RCC is trying to push down your throat!
If this is literal, then use it when the elements to be literally as well taste the blood. and as meat. Do not.
Born of a schism, and who believe in the Bible instead of the word of the Lord.
During the Last Supper, when Jesus said: "Take, eat. This is my body "was literally talking about? Was cutting pieces of meat and food to the disciples? Jesus then said: "Do this in remembrance of me." That is what communion (Eucharist) is all about: remembering the suffering that Christ experienced for us. What would be the point of us, literally, to eat his flesh and drink his blood? Sounds pretty grim to me.
Intelligence?
You seem to be making a point more than ask a question.
Luther design is distinct from the Eucharist, the transubstantiation - where the bread and wine are considered to be transformed into the body and blood of Christ - and the mere symbolism. Luther's view of Christ consubstantiation says "real presence" in the bread and wine as the heat in a hot iron.
But, of course, Protestants believe that the interpretation of scripture is a circular process that both informs and is informed by Spirit Scripture. For them, the idea that Christ could actually be referred to their own meat, literally seems outlandish. And, indeed, could recognize that often the words of Christ are very metaphorical and often parables to show that the simple things right words or not.
However, Catholicism holds that the Church deals with issues of interpretation and one might say that the Catholic is not humble venture in any private interpretation greatly.
He was crucified once and only once for our sins, He need not be considered a sacrifice of time and time again. His blood was shed once. He said "do this in remembrance of me" He then described the bread and wine. a comparison
The Eucharist is the culmination of all Christianity. All I can say is that Protestants are deceived, all verbatim passages from the Bible John 6 is possible, the most obvious, yet somehow make symbolic and should not be taken literally, do it any other way and, above all, a literal reading revelations, for some reason.
There are many reasons I just noted, the Catholic Church is in the unit due to the presence in the Eucharist is not only interesting how the only church with the Eucharist and how to divide the Protestant churches are all without it.
here is more in the Eucharist for interestedhttp: / / http://www.realpresence.org/http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_euc …
Because it is symbolic. It is a ritual prop.
This is the same as asking why a statue of Buddha does not get hungry and eat the fruit set on their feet. The statue is a symbolic representation of a state of mind worth cultivating. Jesus was speaking in allegorical terms, imploring people to eat their nature, because he was a master teacher. It's similar to why Sikhs wear a turban, to constantly remind themselves to bring their thoughts to God, instead of dwelling on a minor level Baser. Jesus was able to manifest miracles because he had a perfect knowledge. He was not defending cannabalism. If you took his words literally would look like.
Catholic girl gave a great answer. It is a matter of biblical interpretation. However, funny enough, every time I go to take the Eucharist in the Catholic church, I feel a deep reverence and a sense that I am getting the real presence of Jesus. Unfortunately, good as other names, is simply a substitute sacharine and conterfeit in other churches.
Using private interpretations of the Bible. Accordingly, the sermon of the bread of life and all of John 6 is just a metaphor. That is a shame, because the Greek word means, literally, to eat, and people started to leave when he gave that lesson, because they disliked and did not understand - it was for them to cannibalism, I knew that was not using a metaphor . (John 6:60-68)
If Jesus is only understood as a metaphor, why so many of his followers to get up and leave it? Why not call on Jesus again and say, "No, no. I am speaking in parables again! Come back! "But he did not. He meant what he said.
I am a Catholic convert. I was a Protestant for many many years, but not practicing all the way. Even the use of the word Eucharist in my knowledge. Communion is not given out every Sunday and is only saved for special events. Although I have heard that is a bad habit and you want to change. They are not as traditional as we are. We continue all aspects of the T, while pursuing their own versions. That's why you go to every Protestant church teaches something different. No doctrine, except the Bible and the Bible can be interpreted in many ways.
Jesus did not keep the Eucharist. Let's take a look in the Bible.
Matthew 26: 17On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?"
18He answered: "Go to the city to a man and tell him, 'The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I shall celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house. "19So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Passover.
Jesus and his disciples were about to eat the Passover.
Matthew 26: 26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat this is my body."
27Then took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying: "Drink of it all. 28This is my blood of the [b] covenant, which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Only by keeping the Passover of the New Covenant we can receive eternal life as Jesus said.
Unfortunately, the Catholic Church abolished the Easter in 325 AD and replaced it with communion.
God festivities were removed one by one by the authority of Satan, as prophesied in Daniel 7:25.
Unfortunately, some people hate the truth and insist on maintaining the man-made traditions rather than the commands of God.
This is why the second coming of Christ has come in recent days and has restored the Passover as prophesied in the Bible.
In Jewish thought, the bread is equated with the Torah, and "eat it" was the reading and understanding of God (see Deuteronomy 8:3). For example, the apocryphal book of Sirach says: " 'He who eats me still hungry, drink to me a thirst for more, but that is because I was not put to shame, that I never fail . All this is true of the book of the covenant of the Most High, the law Moses commanded us as a legacy for the community of Jacob "(Sirach 24:20-22). Quoting Sir here is not to approve the Scripture, but that only serves to illustrate how the Jewish people thought of the Mosaic Law. It is important to understand the equation with the bread of the Torah in order to assess real Jesus.
In John 6, Jesus is actually telling the people that He is superior to the Torah (cf. Jn 6:49-51), and the whole system of the Mosaic Law. In step Sir, it is argued that those who eat of the Law "is still hunger and thirst for more," the language which is reflected in Jesus when He said: "Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, he who believes in Me will never thirst "(John 6:35). Jesus is not commanding people literally eat his flesh and drink his blood, ie to the core of Christian doctrine: belief in Jesus ( "The Work of God is this: to believe in he has sent, "John 6:29, emphasis added). Therefore, the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is unbiblical.
Secondly, there is a clear analogy in John 6, the days of Moses and manna to eat. In the days of Moses, manna was God for the provision of food for the Israelites, as they wandered in the desert. In John 6, however, Jesus said to be the true manna, the bread of heaven. With this statement Jesus be God, the full provision for salvation. Manna was God's provision for the release of hunger. Jesus is the God of liberation from damnation. Just as the manna that has been consumed to preserve the life of the Israelites, so Jesus has to be consumed (total amount received by faith) for the salvation that is received.
It is very clear that Jesus refers to himself as the Bread of Life, and encouraged his followers to eat his flesh in John 6. But we do not need to conclude that Jesus was teaching what the Catholics have been referred to as transubstantiation. The Lord's Supper / Christian Communion / Holy Eucharist had not been created yet. Jesus did not institute the Eucharist / Mass / Lord's Supper until John chapter 13. Therefore, the continuation of the Lord's Supper in John 6 is unjustified. As indicated above, it is better to understand this passage to reach the light of Jesus, in faith, for salvation. When we receive Him as Savior, putting all our trust in Him, we are "The consumption of meat and drink his blood." His body was broken (his death) and his blood was shed to provide for our salvation. 1 Corinthians 11:26, "For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, which proclaim the Lord's death until He comes."
because they are turning it into an idol
I somehow feel the Eucharist is being mass produced in Chinese factories.