In this post I want to adduce reasons for why, even if I were a Christian, I would not believe that the Communion Hosts in Catholic and Orthodox churches are the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ....
This is because the evidence that such is the case in the Bible is scant and easily explainable through alternative conjectures that are also very reasonable. I will go through some right now. Furthermore, in addition to these, I challenge anyone to offer me any argument to the contrary that I cannot rationally rebut in a similar way....
1. Firstly, "the hard saying" line in the Gospel when Jesus in the Last Supper blesses the bread and wine and says explicitly that this is indeed his body and blood.... The argument in the affirmative goes something like this: if Jesus was speaking metaphorically, why does this symbolism differ so markedly from other symbolic statements. Jesus has referred to himself as the "Door" to eternal life, but he never claimed that a real door in the real world was him.... Why is this the sole instance where Jesus literally says that He IS what He Holds Up, namely real wine and bread?
My answer to this is this: There are few things quite as concrete and real to us as food. Food sustains us. Without food we would die. Food is Real, Tangible, Actual.... Just so Jesus, or God, is Real and not imaginary. God's grace is such that it can't be written off as a fanciful phantasm. It is REAL, once again. So Jesus associating himself with something so literal and concrete is not far-fetched at all.
2. Secondly, there is the other instance where Jesus mentions other people eating "his flesh", as it were in no uncertain terms (John 6:49-51) Jesus seems to make a demarcation between bread and himself, the bread being his "flesh" once more. This itself seems like an argument against the RP because, well, in my opinion we are not reducible to our bodies.... Be that as it may, Catholics and others may use this to suggest that the Host is flesh, and Jesus didn't clarify to the contrary.....
My answer here is Relational. Jesus obviously is stressing the deeply personal aspect of himself. To Love God is to be in intimate communion with him, so that it is TANTAMOUNT to an act as visceral as EATING FLESH. To Eat something is to incorporate it materially with oneself... a fusion. In other words, INTIMACY. So, similarly like in the first case, one may see this as an instance of the Radical Concrete... but still a symbol....
3. Thirdly is, the expressions used in the Bible regarding the eating of Jesus' flesh.... The Greek word "phagein" which means simply "to eat" switches to "trogein" a "coarser" word meaning to "munch" or "to chew" -- used in classical Greek of animals eating....
My answer here is, likewise, along similar lines. When human beings eat, we do so with enthusiasm, with passion, with eagerness.... In a sense, to munch in such a way on God's grace is to be naked and primal. This is life-sustaining food that speaks to us in the most primal of recesses. God inter-penetrates us with his grace, coming down to our level in a way, God encounters us in our sin, in our animality, in our Naked Being.... So, the use of such words is far from far fetched. Rather, it is expected.
4. Fourthly, we go back to the "hard saying" line, in which after hearing of Jesus teaching, "many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about him." The proponents of this view say that this points to the fact that Jesus was actually teaching cannibalism, or something to that effect. But that is hardly clear or the case!
It may simply have been because the Law of Moses forbade drinking blood. Or perhaps those disciples couldn't handle the level of criticism that would come on them in wake of this controversy.
Or perhaps they couldn't handle Jesus being so intimate with them? Perhaps they were looking for a Leader (Messianic warrior) rather than a Lover?
So this, too, fails flat.
If anyone has any other arguments, I'll be happy to hear them. I don't think, however, that I'll change my mind....
Why I don't believe in the Real Presence.
Moderator: Moderators
- Dimmesdale
- Sage
- Posts: 807
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
- Location: Vaikuntha Dham
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 94 times
Why I don't believe in the Real Presence.
Post #1The Holy Name of Sriman Narayana is transcendentally peaceful. It bestows ultimate liberation and freedom, for it is Narayana Himself. It is not a material name under any condition, and it is no less powerful than Narayana Himself. Since it is not contaminated by the material qualities, there is no question of its being involved with illusion. The Name is always liberated and spiritual. It is never conditioned by the laws of material nature. This is because the Name of Narayana and Narayana Himself are identical.
- historia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2631
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
- Has thanked: 229 times
- Been thanked: 330 times
Re: Why I don't believe in the Real Presence.
Post #21It's not clear to me why anyone would jump to that conclusion.Wootah wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 3:02 pm
Well in the OT system a new bull or whatever was really killed and it's real flesh and blood paid for sins temporarily.
So it could be seen that the claim of eating Jesus real flesh and blood, broken for you, is similarly making Jesus die all over again rather that a symbolic gesture to remember.
Just sticking with the OT example you mentioned: If the high priest sacrifices a bull at the Temple and then he brings the meat of that sacrifice to you to eat, is that act of bringing the meat to you "making the bull die all over again" or "re-sacrificing" the bull?
- onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 9249
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1265 times
- Been thanked: 329 times
Re: Why I don't believe in the Real Presence.
Post #22The concept is familiar to NT authors, esp. Paul. In the instance I'm thinking of, a person who falls away "is impossible to be revived again to repentance, because they impale the Son of God afresh for themselves and expose him to public shame." (Hebrews 6:4-6) I think that that is applicable to the act of eating bread with the belief that they are eating Christ's literal flesh. Why impale him repeatedly?historia wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 3:22 pmIt's not clear to me why anyone would jump to that conclusion.Wootah wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 3:02 pm
Well in the OT system a new bull or whatever was really killed and it's real flesh and blood paid for sins temporarily.
So it could be seen that the claim of eating Jesus real flesh and blood, broken for you, is similarly making Jesus die all over again rather that a symbolic gesture to remember.
Just sticking with the OT example you mentioned: If the high priest sacrifices a bull at the Temple and then he brings the meat of that sacrifice to you to eat, is that act of bringing the meat to you "making the bull die all over again" or "re-sacrificing" the bull?
- Wootah
- Savant
- Posts: 9264
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
- Has thanked: 194 times
- Been thanked: 108 times
Re: Why I don't believe in the Real Presence.
Post #23Well yes the process of eating is definitely related to sacrifice. We eat the animal over and over again until gone and I do say thanks before each meal.historia wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 3:22 pmIt's not clear to me why anyone would jump to that conclusion.Wootah wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 3:02 pm
Well in the OT system a new bull or whatever was really killed and it's real flesh and blood paid for sins temporarily.
So it could be seen that the claim of eating Jesus real flesh and blood, broken for you, is similarly making Jesus die all over again rather that a symbolic gesture to remember.
Just sticking with the OT example you mentioned: If the high priest sacrifices a bull at the Temple and then he brings the meat of that sacrifice to you to eat, is that act of bringing the meat to you "making the bull die all over again" or "re-sacrificing" the bull?
The bull doesn't die over and over again because reality. But symbolically it is.
So that ongoing sacrifice and the ongoing eating symbolically are the same thing - we do it so we don't die.
Jesus ended the sacrifice system. Accepting that sacrifice and eating his flesh and blood are one time things.
Communion is for remberance. For my hard heart.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826
"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image ."
Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826
"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image ."
- historia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2631
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
- Has thanked: 229 times
- Been thanked: 330 times
Re: Why I don't believe in the Real Presence.
Post #24Okay, but that's not what I asked.Wootah wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:28 pmWell yes the process of eating is definitely related to sacrifice.historia wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 3:22 pm
Just sticking with the OT example you mentioned: If the high priest sacrifices a bull at the Temple and then he brings the meat of that sacrifice to you to eat, is that act of bringing the meat to you "making the bull die all over again" or "re-sacrificing" the bull?
In the example above, when the priest brings the meat of the sacrificed bull to you to eat, does he have to kill that meat a second time before you can eat it? Or is he just bringing you the meat from the bull that has already been killed?
If you are eating meat from a bull that was sacrificed, then you are participating in that sacrifice. But you are participating in that one sacrifice. You eating the meat is not somehow a different sacrifice. The bull isn't somehow killed a second time when you eat it. Agreed?
- Wootah
- Savant
- Posts: 9264
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
- Has thanked: 194 times
- Been thanked: 108 times
Re: Why I don't believe in the Real Presence.
Post #25Actually I disagree.historia wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 9:25 amOkay, but that's not what I asked.Wootah wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:28 pmWell yes the process of eating is definitely related to sacrifice.historia wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 3:22 pm
Just sticking with the OT example you mentioned: If the high priest sacrifices a bull at the Temple and then he brings the meat of that sacrifice to you to eat, is that act of bringing the meat to you "making the bull die all over again" or "re-sacrificing" the bull?
In the example above, when the priest brings the meat of the sacrificed bull to you to eat, does he have to kill that meat a second time before you can eat it? Or is he just bringing you the meat from the bull that has already been killed?
If you are eating meat from a bull that was sacrificed, then you are participating in that sacrifice. But you are participating in that one sacrifice. You eating the meat is not somehow a different sacrifice. The bull isn't somehow killed a second time when you eat it. Agreed?
I am saying in reality no one can kill a bull twice but symbolically, in effect, every time I open the fridge and take out more beef from the same bull there is a sense in which I am killing it again. I would kill the bull again and would eat its meat again.
I do it for rememberance. For my hard heart keeps hardening and God keeps breaking it.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826
"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image ."
Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826
"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image ."
- historia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2631
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
- Has thanked: 229 times
- Been thanked: 330 times
Re: Why I don't believe in the Real Presence.
Post #26Okay, but it seems to me that your argument here only gets us to the conclusion that, if someone adopts this peculiar, symbolic way of thinking about eating -- one that, by your own admission, runs contrary to reality -- then he or she might reach peculiar conclusions concerning the Eucharist.Wootah wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 6:36 pmActually I disagree.historia wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 9:25 amOkay, but that's not what I asked.Wootah wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:28 pmWell yes the process of eating is definitely related to sacrifice.historia wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 3:22 pm
Just sticking with the OT example you mentioned: If the high priest sacrifices a bull at the Temple and then he brings the meat of that sacrifice to you to eat, is that act of bringing the meat to you "making the bull die all over again" or "re-sacrificing" the bull?
In the example above, when the priest brings the meat of the sacrificed bull to you to eat, does he have to kill that meat a second time before you can eat it? Or is he just bringing you the meat from the bull that has already been killed?
If you are eating meat from a bull that was sacrificed, then you are participating in that sacrifice. But you are participating in that one sacrifice. You eating the meat is not somehow a different sacrifice. The bull isn't somehow killed a second time when you eat it. Agreed?
I am saying in reality no one can kill a bull twice but symbolically, in effect, every time I open the fridge and take out more beef from the same bull there is a sense in which I am killing it again. I would kill the bull again and would eat its meat again.
In that case, I would simply advise you not to adopt this unusual perspective, and your objection resolves itself.