Why is Catholic Bashers Protestants who claim to believe in the literal interpretation of Scripture?
insist that the bread and wine at communiom are merely symbols of the body and blood of Christ. When Jesus said at the Last Supper:
"This is my body which is given to you" in Luke 22:19 and
"Verily, verily, I say: if you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" John 6:53 and
Food for my flesh is real, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him ". John 6:55-56
Just wondering how come. Thank you.
Yours in Christ
- How Protestants (non-Catholic Christians) Interpret John 6: 51-56?
- Why do Protestants not believe in the Eucharist?
- Why Protestants do not believe that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist?
- Cannibalism still believe in the church?
- Who is saved: the Catholic priests in the religion founded Joke or pastors began their own church?
The Bible is full of references to the Eucharist, all of John 6 is one of the principal, for a complete list can be found at http://www.scripturecatholic.com
I have wondered the same from the original language that was written in which you can clearly see that it is symbolic. It is strange how John is interpreted symbolically revelations here still often interpreted as literal when it is obviously a symbolic apocalytic style of writing. we hope our separated brothers and sisters in Christ to begin to see the importance of the Eucharist as a blessing from the gods greatet to his church.
Pastor Billy says: this may sound too simple, but if you refuse ministrial valid priesthood and Protestants have made then how can you have a valid communion? Response can not be understood first Protestant and therefore the rejection of the priesthood led to a denial of the Eucharist can not have one without the other.
Bishop Ignatius of Antioch 4 citations for ya to read them all in order;)
"Be careful to do all things in harmony with God, with the presiding bishop in the place of God, and with the priests in the place of the board of the Apostles and deacons, who are most dear to me charge of the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is ultimately manifested "(Letter to the Magnesians 6 [AD 110]).
"Make sure therefore that you all observe a common Eucharist, for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup for union with his blood, and one altar of sacrifice, whether there are least one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servants, the deacons. This will ensure that all their actions are in complete accord with the will of God "(Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [AD 110]).
"Let no one do anything of interest to the Church without the bishop. Allow a Eucharist as valid which is celebrated by the bishop or by whom he sends [ie, a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, as always, Jesus Christ, there is the Catholic Church "(Letter to Smyrna 8:2 [AD 110]).
"Take note of those with heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ has come, and see how their views are contrary to God's mind …. They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins and that the father who, in His goodness raised again. Those who deny the gift of God is lost in their disputes "(Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6 :2-7: 1 [AD 110]).
The fact is that the poster claiming Jesus speaks only spiritually entirely missing the point that Jesus does not correct itself when listeners do not understand or, more correctly understood, and will not accept the teaching of John 6. These followers of Jesus because Jesus let his word and say "this is a difficult thing." It correctly understand Jesus to mean you should eat it. What I do not want to answer is how God will make offers to us in the Eucharist undered the presence of bread and wine.
Love your question, as it is in the heart of our division, a rejection of the priesthood ministrial starting with Jesus Christ himself, our Protestant brothers just do not see the obvious, making excuses as to claim they are the best fans Christ when in fact they have chosen the doctrine away from Christ.
The apostles, who received the grace, power, and the truth of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and who experienced the Last Supper with Jesus, never doubted that the bread and wine is consecrated in fact became the real body and true, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
The Lord's Supper, the Eucharist authentic, which is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus, was always in the center of their worship on Sunday, as it is for Catholics and Orthodox today.
The Catholic Church has always known that this is true, simply because it's true.
The Last Supper was the fulfillment of Passover.
Any attempt to use a purely symbolic lamb in the first Passover, would have resulted in death.
Any attempt to get a purely symbolic Christ will finally have the same result.
This just proves once again that those who rely on erroneous and incomplete interpretation of Scripture alone, for his thorough understanding of the Christian faith, are losing more than half of it.
They lack the truth of this … which is Jesus Christ … in the flesh.
I see the person quiet about me not getting what they were saying. Catholics do party and I'm not even Catholic, and I'm sick of it. You're right, of course. They have no answer, unless you want to admit that the Bible can not be taken literally.
Yes, he is clearly speaking literally. When Jesus was speaking symbolically about food, as it did in John 4:31-34 and Mt. 16:5-12, the disciples interpreted literally. Jesus He's the only show figuratively speaking. In John 6 where Jesus is speaking of the Eucharist and the disciples to him interpreted literally, could not believe I have fixed them. As a matter of fact, he repeats himself stating in clear language possilbe we must eat his flesh and drinking his blood for eternal life,
Moreover, in the Aramaic language, which our Lord spoke, symbolically "eating meat" or "drink the blood" of someone who intends to pursue and assault them, as in Psalm 27:2, Isaiah 9:18-20, Isaiah 49: 26, Micah 3:3, 2 Samuel 23:15-17, and Rev 17:6,16. So if Jesus is speaking symbolically, then it tells us "who pursues and assaults me will have eternal life." That makes no sense.
God bless,
Stanbo
Let me ask you this:
If Jesus literally meant "this is my body" when they were given bread - What was it that they are given bread?
As to John chapter 6, why did Jesus conclude their education with this statement:
"" It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing, the words I have spoken are spirit and life. "(John 6:63)
I was raised Catholic, communion many times, yet had never in my spiritual life.
I have received spiritual life through a personal encounter with Jesus Christ more than 36 years when I was reborn after the Lord spoke this simple word in my heart: "Maybe Jesus really died for the sins you ".
My life was instantly and completely changed.
It was then "ate his flesh" - which shared the sacrifice of his body on the cross, and like the bread is consumed and destroyed for the benefit of eating one hand, I became spiritually alive at the cost of meat .
In the same way that "drank his blood", was the spiritual life at the expense of the loss of his soul, (as it is written: "the soul (life) in the blood) in the shed for me Calvary.
Now I believe that, literally, what the apostle Paul taught, after teaching on the theme of communion in I Corinthians chapter 11 that "you (ie all believers) are the body of Christ, and members each. "(I Corinthians 12:27)
Christ is Spirit, and He dwells in his people, and not a piece of bread.
I know that Catholics say it is the body and blood, not symbols.
Protestant Catholic is an oxymoron. They are two different groups, and not just friends.
First, I should point out I will refute any erroneous dogma (not just Catholics). In my opinion, it's never bad to refute the fallacies biblical truth, but that makes me a basher of the person who has these particular false beliefs.
Here are some other verses that will help you put things in perspective further:
You mentioned John. Reading below, you will see:
"The Spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken are spirit and life. "-John 6:63
This passage indicates that Jesus is speaking of His body and blood in the spiritual sense, not literally. His body was broken and his blood shed for our sins. Unless we accept his sacrifice, then we have no life in us.
Also …
"While 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. " Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them saying: Drink from it all. This is my blood of the covenant which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins. "-Matthew 26 :26-28
Jesus is present with his disciples in this passage. If he's alive, and with them, how they can eat and drink his literal body and blood?
Also, consider this verse:
"And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it and gave it, saying, 'This is my body given for you: this do in remembrance of me. "Luke 22:19
The communion is in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice paid for our sins. Must be a moment of reverence and reflection.
One final passage:
"I received the Lord that which also happened to you: The Lord Jesus on the night he was betrayed, took bread and gave thanks, broke it and said:" This is my body which is for you, Do this in remembrance of me. "Likewise, after supper he took the cup, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood this, whenever you drink, in remembrance of me. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. " 1 Corinthians 11:23-26
This is the real purpose of the Communion - to make it in the memory and to proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.
EDITED —– —–
On the contrary, Mom, who interpret John 6:63 as meaning that would be the faulty logic. I just quoted what Jesus said.
Furthermore, his comment about the Jewish religious leaders to discuss and say "Is this real?"
This teaching is hard, this is what can not believe it is real (see below):
"At this the Jews began to complain about it because, he said," I am the bread which came down from heaven. "They said:" Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he say now, "I came down from heaven?"
They do not want to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, that He was sent from heaven. They simply say that Jesus is the son of a carpenter - in other words, only one man. That is the teaching hard and that's why some left. Jesus was speaking of spiritual things and we simply do not understand.
If you insist on the interpretation of these passages in John, literally, then what about when Jesus said:
"I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. " -Jonn 6:35
Literally, right, I'm hungry and thirsty, and now about to go eat. You mean you are no longer literally hungry or thirsty? If you're still eating and drinking, why? His interpretation should not be necessary, right?
The obvious answer is that Jesus is speaking spiritually and symbolically, when he compares God sent manna from heaven. Although physically still hungry and thirsty, spiritually, I am satisfied in Christ, because it fulfills me.
His reference to John I think is the better understanding of this. Read / study of John 48 to 58 and Jesus himself tells us that the symbolism of / truth of the Lord's Supper.
We do it on the first day of the week
Acts 20:7 (which incidentally is the first day of each week)
It is the true body and blood of Christ. Watch the pan under the microscope. It's the heart tissue.