Real Presence

[polonius]

Catholicism and some other Christian religions hold a belief in the real presence of Jesus in a Eucharist. Do you?

If so, why? If not why?

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to brianbbs67]

Yes, but we are commanded against eating blood which would include drinking it. And human is not listed as a clean food.

Your words help support the Catholic position. Yes, it was forbidden to practice cannibalism and this is something all of Jesus’ followers would have known from their study and knowledge of Old Testament writings. And is exactly why, just like the passage tells us, His followers said,


“This saying is hard, and who can hear it?� (Jn. 6:61)

They all heard and understood Him to be speaking literally! And they found this shocking and outrageous. So, they understood Him correctly – He was in fact telling them they needed to eat His flesh and drink His blood, but what they didn’t fully understand was that if they did so, they would not be guilty of engaging in cannibalism. There are many logical reasons why what Jesus was asking was NOT the same thing as cannibalism. Remember, Jesus was establishing a new Covenant. He was showing them things are going to be different now. They needed to look at things in a new way. They needed to be capable of rising above the law to understand on a deeper level what God was desiring for them.

Here are just a few ways receiving the Holy Eucharist with the knowledge and understanding in the True Presence is vastly different from the crime of cannibalism . . .


************


Cannibals eat what is dead.

By contrast, Christ, is alive.

The Eucharist is the whole body and blood of Jesus Christ. Cannibals only take a part of their victims.

The Eucharist is the glorified body of Jesus Christ. Concomitance is possible because Christ’s living and eternal body is forever reunited with His blood; hence, receiving the former entails receiving the latter. Christ’s risen body is not a resuscitated corpse like that of Lazarus, but an utterly transformed “spiritual body� (I Cor. 15:44) far different from the spatio-temporal “body of our lowness.� (Phil. 3:21) Therefore, when a Catholic receives the Eucharist, he is receiving not just flesh but glorified flesh, a resurrected and transfigured “super body� that foreshadows the new reality of a new Heaven and a new earth. Cannibalistic practices don’t do that.


The Eucharist contains the divinity of Jesus Christ. Because Jesus Christ is true God and true man, His divinity and His humanity are also inseparable. Consequently, in partaking of the human “aspects� of Christ (His body, blood, and soul), we also partake of His divine nature.

The Eucharist is not diminished. If Christ is entirely present in even the tiniest part of the Host, then it follows that the living body and blood of Christ are not diminished by the act of receiving Holy Communion (more communicants does not mean “less Christ� left, and so on)


The Eucharist consumes us. When you eat food, it becomes a part of you. With the Eucharist, however, the opposite happens. We become a part of it, that is, in Holy Communion, we are made a part of the mystical body of Christ. In our Lord’s words, those who eat His flesh and drink His blood abide in Him (Jn. 6.40).


The Eucharist is nonviolent Cannibalism is inherently violent and usually predicated on the assumption that the victim is guilty of a crime against a society (usually they are prisoners of war).


In this respect, Holy Communion is actually the supreme instance of anti-cannibalism, an exposé of all evil impostors for what they are. Jesus made the difference clear enough when He referred to Himself as the “Living Bread� (Jn. 6:41).

https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2011/0 ... nnibalism/

As the Torah made flesh, he can not contradict God's words. Or else he would be false. See the test of a prophet described in Duet. 13.

As demonstrated above, there is no contradiction. Jesus came to fulfill the law – not abolish it. He came to establish a New Covenant with His people.

Jesus was a metaphor.

Sorry, that renders the Scripture passage incoherent and illogical. Why would His followers have been offended if Jesus were speaking metaphorically? If He, as you suggest was using the word eat as a metaphor that we should eat and drink Him metaphorically, then what is offensive about that? And like I already explained the language He used was not the word for eat that could possibly have a symbolic meaning – it translated as gnaw/munch.

of course we are to eat and drink up all scripture.

Really? We are to gnaw/chew Scripture? Sorry, doesn’t work. And no one would be outraged were Jesus suggesting we all were to simply symbolically eat Him up! Please think about this!

Christ was God's word in the flesh. He used the bread and wine they always had together , (as most Hebrew's did have wine and bread in fellowship) as a metaphor for himself as the Word in the flesh.

Then it makes even less sense when Paul later says . . .


For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. -1 Corinthians 11:29

Paul tells us if we do not recognize or discern the body and receive unworthily we are bringing judgment upon ourselves. How could mere symbolic bread and wine do this?

Please, I ask you to re read Scripture. Really meditate on these verses. And you need to read Scripture as a whole. You need to see how the NT is fulfillment of the OT. You need to see how Jesus is the unblemished sacrificial lamb that is like sacrificial lambs intended to be consumed. You need to acknowledge that Scripture itself shows us those who heard Jesus understood Him to be speaking literally which you ignore. You need to see how after the Resurrection the Apostle’s went on teaching about discerning the body and blood. Your interpretation ignores the basic meaning of the text and therefore simply does not make sense. It does not jive with Scripture as a whole. Please look into this.

We are not to eat, chew and gnaw scripture? How else do we rightly divide it?

Or make the path straight for the Lord?

That's an interesting term straight out of the OT. Used once, Strongs 3718.

https://biblehub.com/greek/3718.htm

I have read scripture my entire life. The new cannot be against the OT or it is false. If you reread from without predetermination or held beliefs, all will and can harmonize quite nicely.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 21 by brianbbs67]

You didn't address a single thing I mentioned from the Scripture passages. I know you must recognize that your interpretation has holes, which is why you seem to be avoiding discussion. Your interpretation ignores a great deal of Scripture and fails to understand the basic meaning of many of the texts. Please think about some of the things I brought up while you lie in bed tonight. Ask God to help you understand. Try to remain open to the truth. Sincerely ask God to reveal what He wants you to see. Ask Him to allow you to admit you might be wrong and willing to go wherever truth takes you. You are in my prayers.

[RightReason]

[Replying to brianbbs67]

I have read scripture my entire life. The new cannot be against the OT or it is false. If you reread from without predetermination or held beliefs, all will and can harmonize quite nicely.

Yes! Which is my point. Jesus is the new sacrificial lamb! It doesn’t get any clearer than that.

Watch starting at 2:45. The Biblical evidence is powerful.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 17 by onewithhim]

I find it to be "common sense" to actually believe that miracles have happened because it stands to reason that if God created the universe from nothing, he could maneuver creation to cause a deep sea to split apart or a dead body to regain life. It's not hocus pocus.

I agree -- that God can say something and then it happens is not hocus pocus and exactly what happens . . .

God says Let there be light and there was light.

Jesus says to the sick girl you get up you are healed and she got up and was healed.

Jesus says your sins are forgiven and they are forgiven.

Jesus says, This is my body and the bread becomes His body.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to brianbbs67]

So, is that what happened to his body? and why the tomb was empty? The apostles ate him? Would explain his new body looking different enough they didn't recognize him.

You don’t think God could give us Himself under the appearance of bread and wine? You believe that is beyond His capabilities?

No I don't believe Jesus literally turns himself into bread and gets people to literally eat him, because that's silly nonsense. And not a little gruesome.

Except Scripture completely leads up to it. The OT shows us God’s people sacrificed their unblemished lambs. And then the priest ate the spotless lamb. What does Jesus call Himself? He is the lamb. And what a perfect sacrifice He is – the ultimate sacrifice! And since we are human beings we have both bodies and souls. It makes perfect sense God would give us literally Himself as nourishment. And again, like I said John 6 does not make sense to not recognize Jesus was speaking literally. THAT is exactly what the passage is about – the shock that He was speaking literally! The NT is full of demonstrating the significance of transubstantiation. The Last Supper is the focus of the NT. The apostles recognized Jesus when He broke the bread. You have to ignore the majority of Scripture not to see this.

As to my quote, nothing is beyond God's ability. The second is not mine. They can defend that themselves but I am in that camp also.(not denominationally)

As to the claim of eating human flesh and drinking blood, my God follows His commands. To take that literally , means that God has violated His law. He would not as He is faithful. God has never violated the Torah or any other covenant with us. If He did, we would be off the hook, so to speak. I like faithful Gods better. What is , is. What isn't, isn't.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to brianbbs67]

Yes, but we are commanded against eating blood which would include drinking it. And human is not listed as a clean food.

Your words help support the Catholic position. Yes, it was forbidden to practice cannibalism and this is something all of Jesus’ followers would have known from their study and knowledge of Old Testament writings. And is exactly why, just like the passage tells us, His followers said,


“This saying is hard, and who can hear it?� (Jn. 6:61)

They all heard and understood Him to be speaking literally! And they found this shocking and outrageous. So, they understood Him correctly – He was in fact telling them they needed to eat His flesh and drink His blood, but what they didn’t fully understand was that if they did so, they would not be guilty of engaging in cannibalism. There are many logical reasons why what Jesus was asking was NOT the same thing as cannibalism. Remember, Jesus was establishing a new Covenant. He was showing them things are going to be different now. They needed to look at things in a new way. They needed to be capable of rising above the law to understand on a deeper level what God was desiring for them.

If a prophet ever teaches against God, you have to disregard them and more.I don't believe Christ did here either. The New Covenant did not violate the Old. It added to it. What does Jer. 31 tell us? God's law will be written on our hearts and we will want to do it. Welcome to the new, over laid on the old. God never, ever, changes. Why would His law change?

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 25 by brianbbs67]

As to the claim of eating human flesh and drinking blood, my God follows His commands. To take that literally , means that God has violated His law.

Not at all, as I already explained. First, Jesus is not mere man. He is true God and true man. Cannibalism is the eating of humans. Also, Jesus is not dead. He is very much alive. Cannibalism is eating a dead person. Cannibalism is also about killing one’s enemy and eating one’s victim. Christians do not consider Christ as their enemy. Also, the reason cannibalism was considered wrong was because it is believed a person’s blood is their life force and we are forbidden from desiring or taking someone else’s life. Of course, we are expected to do so with Christ. “I am the way, the truth, and the life�. His Body and Blood we need. It is so obvious from Scripture:


50This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that anyone may eat of it and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And this bread, which I will give for the life of the world, is My flesh.� 52 John 6:51

He tells us He is the []living[/i] bread. He explains this bread He is going to give us (which is Himself) will give life and He reiterates – it is His Flesh!

And you don’t address any of the Scripture, especially this part . . .

At this, the Jews began to argue among themselves, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?�…

many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

You fail to explain why they would have found Jesus’ words difficult if He were speaking figuratively? If Jesus were simply saying, soak me in, drink me up. I’m symbolically telling you have to eat my body and drink my blood, what is offensive about that? NOTHING! It simply isn’t offensive if taken symbolically.

But they heard Him correctly, right? Jesus didn’t clarify other than emphasizing even further He said what He meant and He meant what He said.

How do you not see yourself in those Disciples that left? You are doing the very same thing. You are saying, no way can you be telling us to eat your flesh. How can this man give us His flesh to eat? You are disbelieving what Jesus is trying to tell you. You don’t accept it. Scripture tells us many left that day, but He turned to the Apostles and asked, "Do you too wish to go?" And Peter spoke for them all in showing his commitment and faith.

Why would His law change?

It didn’t. But our understanding of the Law had to change. We no longer follow Mosaic Law. Is circumcision commanded? Do you think it is a sin to eat shell fish? So you’re argument fails on so many accounts. We are called to follow God’s Law and the moral law. God did not change, but His hope is that we do.




_________________

Here is the point: we are given a mythical account of Christ's childhood, but I am not referring to childhood but to the fact that the man lived for thirty years before he emerged into public life. We do not know anything about his education, his occupation, his skills... we can only guess

Uuummm . . . very good educated guesses. We know His father was a carpenter and in that day most young people learned the trade of their father. We also know during that time a Jewish boy like Jesus would have been taught Hebrew and have been well educated in Scripture. This isn’t difficult to deduce. And we have to make these deductions about almost everyone born before a certain time.

I also think you devalue the significance of those 30 hidden years. You imply they were uneventful. I say au contraire, mon frère. Quiet ordinary family life is far from uneventful or meaningless. It is where we learn to love. It is where we are all made to feel special and unique and we celebrate each others victories, accomplishments, birthdays, talents, etc.

unless we are GK Chesterton, in which case we get a letter from God.

Cute. You always make me laugh. Sure seems like Chesterton might have heard a few whispers in his ears based on his insightful observations. Or maybe God writes us all letters, but because of our settings they keep going into our spam folder.

RightReason wrote:



This story even mentioned how when they found Him others were gathered around Him listening in awe about all He was saying.



This is the second probably fictional detail: the precocious Christ, is already skilled in Scripture.

Of course! You think memorizing the Baltimore Catechism was a modern day invention? During Jesus’ time they probably got more than slapped with a ruler if they didn’t know their stuff.

Yes, he needed what is called an education. He should have settled down to Euclid's geometry, or read Virgil's bucolics or perhaps he could have discovered the amazing facts about bees in book 4 of the Georgics or maybe just pondered over Plato's cave. He should have been advised to avoid reading about Adam, Noah and Abraham. I suspect the story is apocryphal - since it is just an illustration of Christ's impossible theology: Give everything away and beg! The idiotic Saint Anthony of Egypt, having inherited a fortune, gave it away to follow this silly advice, leaving his poor young sister with nothing.

Oh, Marco . . . sometimes we need to learn the hard way that we can be happier with less. There is more joy in giving than receiving. We find more peace when we are able not to worry about the future and live in the moment. Well, there is still time to discover these beautiful unpopular truths.

It doesn't show "Jesus was prepared to take care of him."

Doesn’t it? It didn’t look like any of His Disciples regretted their decision. They stuck it out even unto their death. Sounds to me like they were at great peace and lacked nothing.

the Church that stands there, albeit the best representative of Christianity, does NOT follow the advice he gave to the rich young man. It cannot, in practical terms, but Jesus would have it otherwise.

How exactly does the Church not follow the advice given to the rich man? Priests take vows of poverty. They own very few personal possessions. They go where they are told to go. If you are criticizing the ornate churches then you fail to understand beauty and love.

RightReason wrote:



The slaughter of 125,000 babies a day is so much nicer when it’s done in the name of choice.



This is not part of any belief I have, so you are directing this comment at teh wrong person

Just pointing out religious are not the only ones who can be guilty of savage barbaric crimes like you so often like to tout.

Interesting conversation as usual, and thank you for your good intentions towards the lost Marco.

Always an interesting conversation with you Marco. We aren’t the enemy, you know? And nothing is as black and white as we sometimes think – even the Church. I love how Chesterton explained the process of his inevitable conversion . . .

"It is impossible to be just to the Catholic Church. The moment men cease to pull against it, they feel a tug toward it. The moment they cease to shout it down they begin to listen to it with pleasure. The moment they try to be fair to it they begin to be fond of it. But when affection has passed a certain point it begins to take on the tragic and menacing grandeur of a great love affair..."