Why do so many Christians not believe Jesus's plain words

David Cabrera said:

So you think it's great that if a priest baptizes you but he was sinning, then the baptism doesn't count?

Click to expand...

No, it's not great. However, if baptism/communion are mere symbols, the sins of the priest do not affect the ceremony.

But if evil men can successfully invite the presence of God then Christianity loses its validity before the entire world.

How can we face the fallen world and tell them to repent when our spiritual leaders can get away with gross carnality? This makes a mockery of the goodness and greatness of God.

Peter J Barban said:

No, it's not great. However, if baptism/communion are mere symbols, the sins of the priest do not affect the ceremony.

But if evil men can successfully invite the presence of God then Christianity loses its validity before the entire world.

How can we face the fallen world and tell them to repent when our spiritual leaders can get away with gross carnality? This makes a mockery of the goodness and greatness of God.

Click to expand...

Except they aren't symbols.

Peter J Barban said:

No, it's not great. However, if baptism/communion are mere symbols, the sins of the priest do not affect the ceremony.

But if evil men can successfully invite the presence of God then Christianity loses its validity before the entire world.

How can we face the fallen world and tell them to repent when our spiritual leaders can get away with gross carnality? This makes a mockery of the goodness and greatness of God.

Click to expand...

No one is impeccable, no even the clergy.

Thoughtless one-liners do not belong on a serious discussion forum. If the real presence of Christ was always present in the consecrated host, then surely people would notice this and experience some tangible results.

Unfortunately, eating the aforementioned host has no real effect. Ths claimed presence of Christ has only metaphysical effects. If the priest forgot to bless the host, no human would ever know the difference.

This sounds more and more like Gnosticism.

Peter J Barban said:

Thoughtless one-liners do not belong on a serious discussion forum. If the real presence of Christ was always present in the consecrated host, then surely people would notice this and experience some tangible results.

Click to expand...

What makes you think people don't?

This sounds more and more like Gnosticism.

Click to expand...

Actually, they had more in common with your own beliefs on the matter:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat It with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the Passion has been revealed to us, and the Resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils. - Ignatius of Antioch

Click to expand...

How can we face the fallen world and tell them to repent when our spiritual leaders can get away with gross carnality? This makes a mockery of the goodness and greatness of God.[/QUOTE]

godenver1 said:

Good human logic, but forgive me for choosing God's word over your reasoning. Notice how the Lutheran position on the Lord's Supper uses biblical evidence, but your position uses human logic? I know which one I'd rather believe.

Click to expand...

It's not human logic though, it's Scripture.
"While they were eating, Jesus took bread", Matthew 26:26. How else can that be interpreted? They were celebrating a Passover meal together, Matthew 26:18 - the meal involved lamb, bread without yeast, herbs etc, which all symbolised and reminded them of the time when God delivered them from Egypt.
The bread made without yeast was because they were in a hurry and didn't have time to wait for it to rise, although they later also had to remove all yeast from their homes. The lamb was the lamb that was killed and its blood put on the doorpost which saved them from literal death.
After supper, Jesus took the cup; in Matthew Jesus says it is the fruit of the vine, Matthew 26:29.

Yes, Jesus is the bread of life, John 6:35.
Yes, Jesus is the true vine, John 15:1
Yes, Christ is our Passover Lamb, 1 Corinthians 5:7, and in this, and other verses, yeast represents sin which we are to get rid of.
But all these are metaphorical. Jesus was not literally a piece of bread, a cracker, a plant or a fluffy sheep; he was a man and also God. He did not literally cut off a finger, pass it round the table, let the blood drip into a cup and make them drink it.

When we eat and drink at communion we are, in some way, taking Christ, the bread of life and true vine, into our hearts and lives. We are remembering his death, honouring him and commemorating that he, the source and substance of life, gave his own life for us so that we could be reconciled to God and have eternal life.
That is what is important; that we celebrate Jesus' death, receive him and give thanks to God for what he did for us.

godenver1 said:

In Matthew 13:31, Jesus says "The Kingdom of Heaven is like...". He is capable of speaking in analogy when He so chooses. He didn't choose to do so when instituting the Sacrament.


The tangible result is is being set free, though faith, to serve our neighbour in loving works.

Click to expand...

I like that result, but I see no tangible evidence that the Lord's table brings this result.

Peter J Barban said:

No, it's not great. However, if baptism/communion are mere symbols, the sins of the priest do not affect the ceremony.

But if evil men can successfully invite the presence of God then Christianity loses its validity before the entire world.

Click to expand...

Do you believe the power of sin is greater than the power of God? I don't think you have thought this through very well. Our doctrine is not about some magic in the priests hands caused by his presumed impeccability, but Christ's promised presence in the sacrament.

Der Alter said:

Where was Jesus' actual, literal body when He held up the cup and the bread?

Click to expand...

Jipsah said:

Right, He was just kidding.

Click to expand...

... or He was speaking metaphorically.

Something He did quite a lot of ...

So much so ... that His own disciples asked Him about the practice ...

Matthew 13

10 Then the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Why do You speak to the people in parables?”

11 He replied, “The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:

‘Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.’

14 In them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled:

‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

15 For this people’s heart has grown callous;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.

Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn,
and I would heal them.’

16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

FireDragon76 said:

Do you believe the power of sin is greater than the power of God? I don't think you have thought this through very well. Our doctrine is not about some magic in the priests hands caused by his presumed impeccability, but Christ's promised presence in the sacrament.

Click to expand...

You are asking a stupid question and you know it.

I see no observable evidence that the real presence of Christ is in the bread and wine. I see no observable evidence that there is any benefit to eating such bread.

I do see a doctrine made by men that benefit themselves greatly. I see the same doctrine used to justify why pedophile priests are not removed from ministry and instead their sins are kept a secret from the naive congregation.

The corruptive potential of this doctrine is only matched by the corruption observed in its guardians.

Out of respect for those who believe that Christ is present in the bread, I will expand that concept to say that Christ is truly present whenever we gather in his name, so that would include communion if not exactly the bread and the wine.

Matthew 18:20 (NIV)
20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

Peter J Barban said:

You are asking a stupid question and you know it.

I see no observable evidence that the real presence of Christ is in the bread and wine. I see no observable evidence that there is any benefit to eating such bread.

I do see a doctrine made by men that benefit themselves greatly. I see the same doctrine used to justify why pedophile priests are not removed from ministry and instead their sins are kept a secret from the naive congregation.

Click to expand...

First, I'm Lutheran, not Roman Catholic. We don't have a sacerdotal priesthood and we don't believe any special power resides in the pastor presiding at the altar. We merely believe the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper are the body and blood of Christ because the Bible says it is so in numerous places (besides the words of Christ himself, we also have Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:16).

Second, you are trying to poison the well and aren't making a good argument in doing so. Outside observers have never credited the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation contributing to the current scandal in the Roman communion. They typically criticize structural issues with the way the institutions of that church works, not with specific doctrines.

godenver1 said:

Edit: I wish I could change the title. Maybe it's too contentious. Forgive me.

Click to expand...

You are correct in that realization (probably from the Spirit to you). The implied sense in the title:
"Why do so many Christians not believe Jesus's plain words"

is that they refuse to accept what Christ said. While some will indeed do that at times, it's not the usual thing most are doing. Instead, they simply have a different level of understanding.

We cannot assert something like: because you see it differently from me it must be you are directly refusing to accept Christ's words.

Instead, we should test, check, our wordings to be sure we are always doing:
Ephesians 4:2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love,
Colossians 3:12 Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience.

Perhaps it was communicated already, but it is possible to edit the title of a thread one posts. I've done it a couple of times. Near the top post #1, there is a text that reads "Thread Tools" and you can hover or click and then select "Edit Title"

There is a deeper meaning in John 6 that just making it about one view of literal flesh and blood vs another view about symbolic and even the deep reality of His real presence.

Deeper yet than these views.

But to hear it, you have to lay aside noise, conflict, argument, doctrine, all the 100 ways we stop listening, and instead truly listen. It would be good to first pray the Lord's prayer, in faith! He chose to use this wording in John chapter 6, and the extensive wording, revisiting it, because it is not an accidental metaphor (to think 'metaphor' or to think 'not metaphor' -- both of those are merely abstraction, and are not listening). You want to get past the abstractions of all kinds (all the doctrines), and stop arguing, and just truly listen. Because He is the teacher (not us). We indeed must abide in Him, partake of Him, but even these truths aren't all there is here. The words He spoke go past, through, beyond our mere intellectual understanding. The words can happen to you. You can listen and be acted upon by His words, and they change you, if you listen.

Peter J Barban said:

You are asking a stupid question and you know it.

I see no observable evidence that the real presence of Christ is in the bread and wine. I see no observable evidence that there is any benefit to eating such bread.

I do see a doctrine made by men that benefit themselves greatly. I see the same doctrine used to justify why pedophile priests are not removed from ministry and instead their sins are kept a secret from the naive congregation.

The corruptive potential of this doctrine is only matched by the corruption observed in its guardians.

Click to expand...

How could you be so incredibly foolish as to expect 'observable evidence' of supernatural, spiritual realities, as though Christianity were another name for materialism, bereft of mysteries - other than, in the latter case, how anyone could not see that materialsim involves sawing off the branch the materialist is sitting on.

Scripture explicitly states that the deepest realities of the spiritual realm are unseen.

paul becke said:

How could you be so incredibly foolish as to expect 'observable evidence' of supernatural, spiritual realities, as though Christianity were another name for materialism, bereft of mysteries - other than, in the latter case, how anyone could not see that materialsim involves sawing off the branch the materialist is sitting on.

Scripture explicitly states that the deepest realities of the spiritual realm are unseen.

Click to expand...

The bible also states that there will be signs that follow them that believe.......I do not think it unwise to look for them.... How else can one determine the real from the unreal?

godenver1 said:

When He says "this is my body"? What is there to misinterpret?

Edit: I wish I could change the title. Maybe it's too contentious. Forgive me.

Click to expand...

Because Jesus spoke mysteries that are only understood in the spirit (1 Cor 2). He obviously wasn’t saying literal bread is his flesh (John 6:63, John 6:31-35). He also said about the cup that this IS the New Testament in my blood. But he hadn’t died yet and the Testament bus only in effect at the death of the testator. So obviously he was speaking figuratively. In shadows and types as scripture shows.

Hebrews 9:15. And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.16. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.17. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.”

Jesus taught the oppressed that there was salvation by way of the Kingdom of God. They had something to live by and look forward to. Man is about showmanship servicing the desires of the here and now, offering immediate gratification while carrying on in the same self serving ways.

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.