What if Jesus comes tomorrow and it turns out these scriptures mean exactly as they read?

Jamdoc · Feb 27, 2021

Valletta said:
John 6:53-56
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."

Yes I'm aware of the verses you take hyperliterally.
But go back to John 3 and John 4.
You're acting like Nicodemus, being hyperliteral about "born again" when Jesus explains that the 2nd birth is born again in spirit. (when you're born again in spirit you are born into God's family)
It's also acting like the woman, who when Jesus offers her water, she notes He has nothing to draw water with so how can He literally give her water? In this case, Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit, filling her like water but never leaving her thirsty again. It quenches something that is like a thirst in every human, a need for a relationship with God that every human has
in John 6 the point was not to literally eat Jesus' physical flesh and drink His physical blood as a mean to commune with Him (I actually find it quite amusing that the wafers are still crisp wafers that taste, sound, and feel like bread and don't chew like flesh after the hocus pocus performed over them (yes, hocus pocus... which is derived from "hoc est corpus meum") and I've never heard of a Catholic talk about how their communion wine tastes salty and metallic). The point was like manna from Heaven, which represents the Word of God which we are to use like daily bread, consuming it for nourishment. Physical bread to nourish our bodies, the Word of God to nourish our spirit... Jesus came down from Heaven. Jesus is the Word of God made flesh. We weren't to eat Him we were to listen to Him and follow Him. We were to live by every word that proceedeth from God's mouth.

John gave 3 stories in those chapters about people taking what Jesus said literally and Jesus had to correct them to explain the spiritual nature of what He was telling them

and yes.. the disciples couldn't understand why Jesus seemed to be telling them to eat His flesh and drink His blood because they were taking it carnally and literally, and Jesus corrected them in John 6:62-63

62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Believe on Him
Listen to Him
Follow Him
Live by His words
every day.

THAT is the point of the entire Gospel of John.

Berean Tim · Feb 27, 2021

BobRyan said:
No he did not. John 6 is not a communion service.

And also in John 6 Jesus did not say "some day in the future you will have to eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood"

In addition -- if the followers of Jesus began literally biting him in John 6 - there would not be "the Cross" at all. He would have died then and there.

Matt 16 - Jesus hammers the disciples for taking the symbol of bread too literally

6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand nor remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets you picked up? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you about bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

You are correct it is not a communion service. I'm sorry I added the accounts together. At the last supper Jesus showed them how to celebrate this symbolic teaching

Valletta · Feb 27, 2021

Jamdoc said:
Yes I'm aware of the verses you take hyperliterally.
But go back to John 3 and John 4.
You're acting like Nicodemus, being hyperliteral about "born again" when Jesus explains that the 2nd birth is born again in spirit. (when you're born again in spirit you are born into God's family)
It's also acting like the woman, who when Jesus offers her water, she notes He has nothing to draw water with so how can He literally give her water? In this case, Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit, filling her like water but never leaving her thirsty again. It quenches something that is like a thirst in every human, a need for a relationship with God that every human has
in John 6 the point was not to literally eat Jesus' physical flesh and drink His physical blood as a mean to commune with Him (I actually find it quite amusing that the wafers are still crisp wafers that taste, sound, and feel like bread and don't chew like flesh after the hocus pocus performed over them (yes, hocus pocus... which is derived from "hoc est corpus meum") and I've never heard of a Catholic talk about how their communion wine tastes salty and metallic). The point was like manna from Heaven, which represents the Word of God which we are to use like daily bread, consuming it for nourishment. Physical bread to nourish our bodies, the Word of God to nourish our spirit... Jesus came down from Heaven. Jesus is the Word of God made flesh. We weren't to eat Him we were to listen to Him and follow Him. We were to live by every word that proceedeth from God's mouth.

John gave 3 stories in those chapters about people taking what Jesus said literally and Jesus had to correct them to explain the spiritual nature of what He was telling them

and yes.. the disciples couldn't understand why Jesus seemed to be telling them to eat His flesh and drink His blood because they were taking it carnally and literally, and Jesus corrected them in John 6:62-63

Believe on Him
Listen to Him
Follow Him
Live by His words
every day.

THAT is the point of the entire Gospel of John.

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). Justin Martyr

East of Eden · Feb 27, 2021

Root of Jesse said:
Well never said we are the only true Christians. Only that we have the entire faith, others have subsets.

Much like the Pharisees, you have a lot of traditions and accretions, some of which contradict the Bible. To quote CS Lewis, I could never be a Catholic, there are too many new doctrines.

What gets me is Peter was supposed to be the first Pope, yet Paul publicly corrected his theological error about the Judaizers.

East of Eden · Feb 27, 2021

Valletta said:
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). Justin Martyr

And from another source:

So far as we know, liturgical functions did not form a significant part of early Christian

leadership. Nowhere in the New Testament does it appear to be a matter of great

significance who baptizes, leads worship, or presides at the Lord's Table.

Jamdoc · Feb 27, 2021

Valletta said:
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). Justin Martyr

Yes thank you for demonstrating how badly many people have let a teaching whoosh over their heads.
Christianity is not about magic rituals. It's not a religion, it's a relationship.

again. Jesus Himself said "the flesh profiteth nothing"
It was never about eating His literal flesh.

Root of Jesse · Feb 27, 2021

Jamdoc said:
and what scripture do you use for the ROMAN Catholic Church's idolatry, Mary worship and pagan practices like prayer beads?
It's almost like they took the church established by the apostles, and then started messing with it absorbing all these worldly doctrines and practices. It's half Roman pagan cult.
I dunno why anyone stays on that train when it left the tracks over 1000 years ago.

What idolatry? And can you prove we worship Mary? Or do we give her honor as most blessed among women? As for common objects being used for prayers, or pagans lighting candles, there is no issue or error.
There is a book you should check out. It's called "The Apostasy that Wasn't". It recounts how men and women chose to die for their faith rather than water it down or change it, or denounce it. Maybe that would change your dunno and understand why we remain true to the faith that is true to us.

Aussie Pete · Feb 27, 2021

parousia70 said:
So blind people are going to miss out on salvation?

Spiritually blind people are unsaved. God has to open the eyes of the spiritually blind before they can be saved. Physically blind people can be saved.

Root of Jesse · Feb 27, 2021

Berean Tim said:
The Bible exist now. The book of Acts, both of Peters letters, or any other states Peter went to Rome.
Acts by the way is "historical"

Yes, historical for the first generation of the Church, as is the entire NT. And the Bible does say Peter went to Rome. They used code to hide from authorities where Peter might be.

Root of Jesse · Feb 27, 2021

East of Eden said:
And from another source:

So far as we know, liturgical functions did not form a significant part of early Christian

leadership. Nowhere in the New Testament does it appear to be a matter of great

significance who baptizes, leads worship, or presides at the Lord's Table.

The book of Revelation is chock full of liturgical functions. Great that you don't cite your source.

Root of Jesse · Feb 27, 2021

Jamdoc said:
Yes thank you for demonstrating how badly many people have let a teaching whoosh over their heads.
Christianity is not about magic rituals. It's not a religion, it's a relationship.

again. Jesus Himself said "the flesh profiteth nothing"
It was never about eating His literal flesh.

As a famous person once said, "what more intimate relationship could you have with Jesus than consuming him every time you go to Mass?"

Root of Jesse · Feb 27, 2021

GraceInChrist said:
Then im glad he came. Because in Jhon 6 it literally says everyone who sees and believes in him will have everlasting life. I have not see him yet, so that would be needed for my salvation.

I see him every time the Eucharist is confected at Mass. Therefore I have salvation. As long as I keep persevering.

Root of Jesse · Feb 27, 2021

Jamdoc said:
That respect has to go both ways and the OP's thread is not showing the kind of respect you demand for non catholic denominations.
If he can be honest how he feels about the other denominations, I can be honest about how I feel about Catholicism.

and like I said, many Catholics also find that the church has been warped since at least Vatican II.

and let's be clear.
the official stance of the Roman Catholic Church is that nobody outside of the Catholic Church can be saved. Francis is kind of going against the grain personally but as far as I know, that's a core belief.

Baptists don't do that. if you go back, I say there are saved Catholics.
Respect needs to go both ways. I'll meet you halfway there, but do not not expect one sided respect towards you while OP denigrates every other denomination.

Honestly? I love my non-Catholic brothers. They often have great faith, much better than many Catholics. I was raised in the UCC, went to various Presbyterian, Baptist and Methodist denominations before finding my Rock in the Catholic Church.
I have not demeaned or disrespected anyone. You have your beliefs, I have mine. I merely took one poster's question, "What if Jesus meant what he said in Scripture" and brought up a couple of Scriptures where we disagree the most.
Regarding salvation outside the Church, the quote is 'there is no salvation outside the Church.', it doesn't actually say "Catholic". It was spoken by many Catholics, but our understanding is that anyone Baptized in the Trinitarian formula is a Baptized Christian, and therefore saved if he perseveres until he meets his Maker.
I don't know where you got the idea that I don't respect Protestants.

Root of Jesse · Feb 27, 2021

Aussie Pete said:
"What if's" are not sound doctrine. The so-called apostolic succession is simply wrong. The pope supports Marxism, an antichrist system that is responsible for 100 million deaths and counting. And if Protestants
are wrong? Jesus still returns for those who are His, who are born again, washed in His blood and saved by His grace.

Well, the Pope's area of expertise is not in politics. He is only infallible in certain circumstances, and we can agree that he has a lot to learn about some things, like climate change and mass immigration.
You have not, though, shown any reason for apostolic succession to be 'simply wrong'.

Root of Jesse · Feb 27, 2021

Jamdoc said:
It seems like every doctrine is hyperliteral about some part of scripture. For Catholics.. part of it is John 6 that they're hyperliteral about.
their doctrine of transubstantiation is based on that hyper literal interpretation..

The context demands such an interpretation. When Jesus declared it, he lost followers.

Root of Jesse · Feb 27, 2021

Dave L said:
But visible institutional churches are not the church. They are nothing more than business franchises that sell religious services to the church. The church is the body of Christ and exists when two or more meet in Jesus' name. They met in houses in Acts and were complete in themselves, pastor, elder, and bishop being interchangeable terms for the same office.

To a large degree, I agree with you. I believe in the faith, not the political institution. Regardiing the Church in Acts, it was small, but as it grew, needed to change. But a bishop was always a bishop. When the congregation grew bigger, he had assistants, priests.
But just because someone's a Catholic doesn't mean his salvation is assured.

GraceInChrist · Feb 27, 2021

Root of Jesse said:
I see him every time the Eucharist is confected at Mass. Therefore I have salvation. As long as I keep persevering.

I trust in his grace. All I need is believing in my redeemer.

Valletta · Feb 27, 2021

Jamdoc said:
That respect has to go both ways and the OP's thread is not showing the kind of respect you demand for non catholic denominations.
If he can be honest how he feels about the other denominations, I can be honest about how I feel about Catholicism.

and like I said, many Catholics also find that the church has been warped since at least Vatican II.

and let's be clear.
the official stance of the Roman Catholic Church is that nobody outside of the Catholic Church can be saved. Francis is kind of going against the grain personally but as far as I know, that's a core belief.

Baptists don't do that. if you go back, I say there are saved Catholics.
Respect needs to go both ways. I'll meet you halfway there, but do not not expect one sided respect towards you while OP denigrates every other denomination.

You don't have to be Catholic to be saved. Vatican II had some beautiful recommendations, unfortunately the secular culture of the 60s negatively effected many Catholics.

East of Eden · Feb 27, 2021

Aussie Pete said:
"What if's" are not sound doctrine. The so-called apostolic succession is simply wrong. The pope supports Marxism, an antichrist system that is responsible for 100 million deaths and counting. And if Protestants
are wrong? Jesus still returns for those who are His, who are born again, washed in His blood and saved by His grace.

We need apostolic succession to the truth of the Apostle's teachings, not to an institution. And yes, this pope is a disgrace, pushing socialism, silent on abortion, and soft on homosexuality. No wonder, the un-Biblical priestly celibacy doctrine draws gays/child molesters to the priesthood. The Bible says it is not good for man to be alone, and that he who finds a wife finds a good thing, and that in the Last Days men will wrongly forbid marriage. The supposed first Pope, Peter, was married.

Valletta · Feb 27, 2021

East of Eden said:
We need apostolic succession to the truth of the Apostle's teachings, not to an institution. And yes, this pope is a disgrace, pushing socialism, silent on abortion, and soft on homosexuality. No wonder, the un-Biblical priestly celibacy doctrine draws gays/child molesters to the priesthood. The Bible says it is not good for man to be alone, and that he who finds a wife finds a good thing, and that in the Last Days men will wrongly forbid marriage. The supposed first Pope, Peter, was married.

Matthew 12 36:
"But I say to you, that for every idle word which men will have spoken, they shall render an account in the day of judgment." CPDV

What if Jesus comes tomorrow and it turns out these scriptures mean exactly as they read?

Watching and Praying Always

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Watching and Praying Always

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Well-Known Member

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads