What is the Baptist interpretation to "Eat My Fles

I hear over and over again how Catholics beleive and pratice things that are not in the bible. Here is one dogma of the RCC that is in the bible over and over again- We must truly eat his flesh and drink his blood if we are to have life in us. Yet, with only a couple of exceptions, protestants discount this command either entirely or they discount the literal interpretation and claim it is only symbollical at best. Why? Convince me. Convince us Catholics that we are wrong on this issue. Why do you take the scriptires literally on so many other issues and yet on this most important issue, you calim it is now only symbolic?

Save all of the other debates for other thread!


Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Jn 6:35-71 - Eucharist promised
Mt 26:26ff (Mk 14:22ff., Lk 22:17ff.) - Eucharist instituted
1Cor 10:16 - Eucharist = participation in Christ's body & blood
1 Cor 11:23-29 - receiving unworthily his body & blood
Ex 12:8, 46 - Paschal lamb had to be eaten
Jn 1:29 - Jesus called "Lamb of God"
1 Cor 5:7 - Jesus called "paschal lamb who has been sacrificed
Jn 4:31-34; Mt 16;5-12 - Jesus talking symbolically about food
1Cor 2:14-3:4 - explains what "the flesh" means in Jn 6:63
Ps 14:4; Is 9:18-20; Is 49:26; Mic 3:3; 2Sm 23:15-17; Rv 17:6, 16 -
to symbolically eat & drink one's body & blood = assault

 

I found this really interesting.

The doctrine of the Eucharist is explicit in the Bible. It left no doubt that this is not metaphor.

From the Bible:


Matt. 16:12 - in this verse, Jesus explains His metaphorical use of the term "bread." In John 6, He eliminates any metaphorical possibilities.

John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52). John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.


John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.


John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.


John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

www.scripturecatholic.com

 

1Cor 10:16 - Eucharist = participation in Christ's body & blood
1 Cor 11:23-29 - receiving unworthily his body & blood

In this part of the Bible is clear that The bread becomes Jesus in 1 Cor 11, 29, its very clear and leds to no other interpretation, you drink and eat, and its it the body of Christ, no doughts.
Interpretations are free, but the Truth is one, the Truth is in the Bible, the word of God. In think you are puting your own interpretation before the Bible. But the Bible is the Bible, you must follow it. The Spiritual communion with Jesus you can have it praying, but Jesus instituted for us the Eucaristy, for he lives with us forever, we dont need to go to the first century to see him, he is the Eucaristy, and with our pariticiation in the Eucaristy we are part of his mistical body, The Church.

 

We know those are symbols. Dont be ridiculous!!!
He spoke in parabolas, and explained them in private to the apostles. But there are no doughts in the Bible that he ment the bread to become his own body, he was not speaking methaforically.
There are symbols of the Eucaristy in the Old Testament, like the "Lamb of God", "The Mana (bread) from God to the Jews", the multiplication on the Bread, that anticipated the Institution of the Eucaristy in the Last Supper.

 

can you explain this to me.

 

Ok. but wich part should we take literally and wich not?? Who has the Authority to take the Bible and determine it.

 

[ Is this a picture of what you think Jesus might have literally looked like?

[Joseph Botwinick [/QUOTE]


No Joseph, definitely not.
To answer your second question: The Succession of the Apostles, and the Successor of Peter, the Pope, who can tie things in earth and those will be tied in Heaven.