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?

[RightReason]

[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.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 10 by JehovahsWitness]

this particullar Catholic dogma

Catholic dogma? Martin Luther believed in the True Presence, even as a schismatic protestant. When he left Christ's Church he was responsible for thousands of splinter groups separating the Body of Christ and going on to teach that which Christ did not teach.

Until then, he like all first Christians taught and believed this. It wasn't until those who did not stay united with Christ's Church began to drop this teaching as they were busy creating their own personal theological beliefs.

[RightReason]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

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.

I still do not understand how you do not see yourself in the gospel with these words you say. Just like Jesus’ followers said that day, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?� You ask the very same thing, “How can this be – sounds silly and nonsensical – what is He talking about?� And after Jesus repeats what He said and reiterates, “Truly, truly . . . my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink . . . “ He turns to those then, just like you now, and says, “Do you take offense with this?� And they, just like you, say, “Yes, we cannot accept that!� and they walked away. Then Jesus turned to His Apostles (His future Church) and asked them, “Do you too wish to go?� To which, Peter, the first Pope, said, “To whom should we go Lord? You alone have the words of eternal life�. They probably didn’t fully understand this beautiful mystery either. They too probably couldn’t understand how such a thing could be possible. But the difference is they knew the one that knows. They trusted and believed Jesus. They believed that with God all things are possible. They knew if they left, they could not be assured of truth for Jesus is the light, the truth, and the way.

How do those who take issue with the True Presence NOT get Scripture is describing themselves in those who left?

[brianbbs67]

I have not heard of this belief. Please, explain.

My goodness. Transubstantiation has been around for centuries. Jesus said: "THIS is my body" In the Latin mass we have "Hoc est enim corpus meum," from which we got "hocus pocus."

It is understood that Jesus, in the way Jesus could, made bread into his body and wine into his blood. The effect of eating the communion host is that the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus is digested - miraculously. One might say this is ludicrous, but so too was talking to the corpse of Lazarus and having it walk.

Yes, I know what transubstantiation is. I wasn't sure if that was what he meant or some new thing.

[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.

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

Jesus was a metaphor. He was the Word of God made flesh. Torah. So, of course we are to eat and drink up all scripture. James said that all of it was to be used for some good purpose.

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. Some there apparently didn't understand this and left. Nor, did Jesus explain. Canabalism and blood drinking were very popular in pagan societies like Greece and Rome. (ever hear of pagan's passing their children thru the fire?) In Judah , not at all.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius]

Didn't Jesus GIVE UP his physical body once for all time so that we could live? Why would he take it back? What purpose would he have for doing that? If he did, wouldn't that make his sacrifice invalid?

"Christ was offered once for all time to bear the sins of many." (Heb.9:28)

In addition to that, the thought of eating literal human flesh and drinking blood was as far from the Jews' and subsequent Christians' mind-sets as anything could be. Cannibalism was anathema to them, and still is, to faithful worshippers of YHWH.

Jesus said, in effect, "This MEANS my body...and my blood," which he gave up for his disciples' benefit. He couldn't have meant it literally, for reasons I have touched upon, and also for the simple reason that when he said it, and passed around the bread and wine, he was sitting right there, whole. How could those emblems have been his literal self?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius]

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.

Since when did designating something as "silly nonsense" stop it from being part of one's theology? I think having exactly 144, 000 people invited to a party at the end of time is silly nonsense, as is the multiplication of a few fish by magic. The concept of
taking Christ into our hearts and souls - with the host as the external sign - is as sane and wise as any other miracle. Once we accept miracles we can no longer use common sense.

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.

[RightReason]

[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.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 16 by onewithhim]

Didn't Jesus GIVE UP his physical body once for all time so that we could live? Why would he take it back? What purpose would he have for doing that? If he did, wouldn't that make his sacrifice invalid?

"Christ was offered once for all time to bear the sins of many." (Heb.9:28)

He doesn’t/didn’t take it back. Proper understanding is recognizing the sacrifice of the mass in which we receive Jesus in the Holy Eucharist is a perpetual offering. It is a once and for all continual offering.

In addition to that, the thought of eating literal human flesh and drinking blood was as far from the Jews' and subsequent Christians' mind-sets as anything could be. Cannibalism was anathema to them

Yes it was. Hence the reaction of those who left Him. “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?� “This is a hard saying. Who can accept it?�

They, like the Jehovah Witnesses could not, but His loyal Apostles could because they trusted Him. They might not have understood it, but they knew their Lord would not steer them wrong. They knew if Jesus was telling them He would do this, then He would do this and they should heed His words.

“Do you too wish to go?�

“To whom would we go? You alone have the words of eternal life�

Jesus said, in effect, "This MEANS my body...and my blood,"

WRONG!!!!! He actually said, “This is my body� “This is my blood�. He said the very opposite of what you are suggesting. He did NOT say this means or this represents. That is a faulty translation!! Please, please take note of this.

[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.

And yet you think Jesus giving Himself to us under the appearance of bread and wine is hocus pocus? Something beyond His capabilities? How so?