Why are Jesus' words regarding the Eucharist so difficult for Protestants to accept?

Question

Matthew: 26:26 “This is My Body.” 26:27 “This is My Blood…”

Mark: 14:22 “This is My Body.” 14:24 “This is My Blood…”

Luke: 22:19 “This is My Body.” 22:20 “This … is the New Covenant in My Blood.”

Jesus said: THIS IS. No Bible-believing Christian can say, “This is not.”

In 1 Cor. 11:23-27 St. Paul repeats the same words - WHY"?:, and he also warns us : "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord." - IS THIS REASONABLE IF IT IS JUST A PIECE OF BREAD?:

Jn 6:53 “Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life,”

It seems that there were protestants at that time also, who were the ones saying “How can this man give us his Flesh to eat?” (Jn 6:52) , and “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”(Jn 6:60)

Some may come with the classic explanation that this is symbolic and will quote when our Lord spoke of Himself as a Jn 10:9 “door” or a Jn 15:1 “vine,” . But in these two ocasions the jews understood that he was speaking symbolically because nobody said, “How can this man be made of wood?” or “How can this man be a plant?

John W:
So you are saying that God cannot do that?

Answer 1

They dont accept it b/c it's said by us crazy Catholics :)

Answer 2

You said that the Jews understood that Jesus was NOT speaking symbolically because they said, "...How can this Man give us His flesh to eat!" Is this not a form of rhetoric, where they are not interested in HOW He will do it, but high lighting the fact that a mere man cannot do it, or ought not to do it?
In John 3:4 Nicodemus said, "Can a man enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Nicodemus was a "ruler of the Jews" and acknowledged Jesus as a teacher "come from God" Do you think he was so unfamiliar with the process of childbirth that he wanted to clarify Jesus' statement? Or in this case, was this his way of asking Jesus to expand this teaching?

Answer 3

You get your answers from Catholic dogma, and I get my answers from the Heidelberg catechism and the Belgic Confession regarding this issue. As far as I'm concerned, it's a mystery, and I won't subject the Lord to my own definitions.

Answer 4

Brother you have to read 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. In it Paul first complains about how the Lord's Supper is being taken. He says in verses 20-23:

"When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not! "

First of all if it were literally the body of Christ, then why make comments about some remaining hungry and humiliating those who have nothing. It was a literal meal of bread and some were being greedy, eating first and leaving nothing for those who were in need.

Second if it were literally the blood of Christ, how is it that some were getting drunk? Paul had to say can't you eat and drink at home first. It was literally bread and wine, and had the effect of satisfying hunger, as well as intoxicating if to much were drunk. This comes exactly from what Paul says.

What is an unworthy manner is to act just the way Paul described - partaking of this ceremony, eating and drinking with no regard for Christ at all.

It is a symbolic tribute to Christ. In verse 26 it says:

"For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. "

Again it is unworthy to partake of this ceremony with no regard for Christ at all. It would be also be unworthy for one to partake of baptism with no regard for Christ at all.

Answer 5

Not all protestants! Lutherans believe in the doctine of Real Presence!

Answer 6

It's time to restore what Henry the Eight changed to suit his own purposes.

Answer 7

Better be more specific - different Protestants believe different things.
Beside, Jesus might have been talking about that wine and that unleavened bread where he was around to perform the miracle - maybe it doesn't work in every church every time.

Answer 8

At the last supper, did Jesus break off a piece of himself for his disciples to eat? And say "do this"?

Did he draw some blood for them to drink?

This question is part of the problem.

Do we all need 20 years education to be saved?
Or do we just need the Faith of a 3 year old?

We need to accept Jesus as Savior, and REPENT of our sins. Faith without works is dead.

As far as worshipping the infallable Pope, praying to men or the dead, and needing a "special" person to create a "special" communion?

No. Shame on you.

No different than the Pharisees in Judea. Rome has not changed a wink.

Like dogs you lie down in the trough of eternal life, and not only do you not drink yourselves, you prevent others from drinking.

You can judge a man by the fruit he produces, and the same goes with a sect. Holy men pedofiles? Abomination.
Catholicism is no closer to eternal life than athiests.

-Edit-

To answer your second question directed at me... There is absolutely nothing that God cannot accomplish.

I am saying that Catholics are so wrapped up in their inconsequential and errant traditions that they concentrate on the window pane rather than looking through the window.

And because of it keep others from looking through the window in the process due to the higher-ups lust for power.

Answer 9

Because it's all nonsense.
Kisses Betty B.

Answer 10

Dunno. Seems perfectly logical to me.