Why I don't believe in the Real Presence.

[Dimmesdale]

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....

[1213]

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....

I think it is interestingly said, which leads to question: if I would own a stake and offer it to others to eat, would they then eat my flesh? In a way yes. I think what Jesus said should be understood similarly, especially because he says:

Jesus therefore said to them, “Most certainly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you don’t have life in yourselves.
John 6:53
But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble?
John 6:61
It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.
John 6:63
Most certainly, I tell you, if a person keeps my word, he will never see death.
John 8:51
Jesus answered him, “If a man loves me, he will keep my word. My Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our home with him.
John 14:23

In the last supper, the bread and wine are like the seal of the new covenant that was done through Jesus. When the previous covenant was done through Moses, it was sealed with the blood of animals. In this new the blood is the wine. And when one takes part of it, he takes part of the new covenant.

He took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in memory of me.” Likewise, he took the cup after sup-per, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
Luke 22:19-20

[Dimmesdale]

In the last supper, the bread and wine are like the seal of the new covenant that was done through Jesus. When the previous covenant was done through Moses, it was sealed with the blood of animals. In this new the blood is the wine. And when one takes part of it, he takes part of the new covenant.

He took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in memory of me.” Likewise, he took the cup after sup-per, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
Luke 22:19-20

I recall reading a Catholic book where it said that the old covenant could ONLY be sealed with blood, and that it follows that the new covenant can only be sealed similarly with actual blood (i.e, "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins" - something to that effect). The argument goes that if the wine was not actually Jesus' blood, his covenant sacrifice would be inferior in quality to the old covenant.

But that is a nonsensical argument. Why? Because it doesn't treat symbolism as symbolism! The actual blood sacrifice is that of Jesus' himself, and the wine in the last supper is simply a POINTER of that. So why read any more into it? That is my reading, anyway.

[1213]

I recall reading a Catholic book where it said that the old covenant could ONLY be sealed with blood, and that it follows that the new covenant can only be sealed similarly with actual blood (i.e, "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins" - something to that effect)...

In this case I think it would be best to remain in what Jesus says, if the intention is to be a disciple of Jesus (="Christian"). Jesus tells the wine is the blood, so then it is and it is enough so.

[onewithhim]

I recall reading a Catholic book where it said that the old covenant could ONLY be sealed with blood, and that it follows that the new covenant can only be sealed similarly with actual blood (i.e, "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins" - something to that effect)...

In this case I think it would be best to remain in what Jesus says, if the intention is to be a disciple of Jesus (="Christian"). Jesus tells the wine is the blood, so then it is and it is enough so.

The wine "points to" the blood of Jesus, shed for the world of mankind. Jesus was saying that to remember his death, a person would drink the wine because it stands in for the blood. It isn't literally blood.

[1213]

I recall reading a Catholic book where it said that the old covenant could ONLY be sealed with blood, and that it follows that the new covenant can only be sealed similarly with actual blood (i.e, "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins" - something to that effect)...

In this case I think it would be best to remain in what Jesus says, if the intention is to be a disciple of Jesus (="Christian"). Jesus tells the wine is the blood, so then it is and it is enough so.

The wine "points to" the blood of Jesus, shed for the world of mankind. Jesus was saying that to remember his death, a person would drink the wine because it stands in for the blood. It isn't literally blood.

I agree that it point to that also. However, I think more than that it refers to that the previous covenant was sealed with animal blood. In this new covenant the blood of the covenant is the wine.

[Wootah]

I recall reading a Catholic book where it said that the old covenant could ONLY be sealed with blood, and that it follows that the new covenant can only be sealed similarly with actual blood (i.e, "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins" - something to that effect)...

In this case I think it would be best to remain in what Jesus says, if the intention is to be a disciple of Jesus (="Christian"). Jesus tells the wine is the blood, so then it is and it is enough so.

The wine "points to" the blood of Jesus, shed for the world of mankind. Jesus was saying that to remember his death, a person would drink the wine because it stands in for the blood. It isn't literally blood.

I agree that it point to that also. However, I think more than that it refers to that the previous covenant was sealed with animal blood. In this new covenant the blood of the covenant is the wine.

Jesus blood on the cross. Jesus broken body on the cross.

Edit - I take Jesus request as symbolic. I regard the view it is real blood and flesh we eat as resacrificing Christ. Happy to hear rebuttals to that.

[1213]

... I regard the view it is real blood and flesh we eat as resacrificing Christ. ..

Is there any Biblical support for that?

[onewithhim]

... I regard the view it is real blood and flesh we eat as resacrificing Christ. ..

Is there any Biblical support for that?

Hebrews 6:4-6

[1213]

... I regard the view it is real blood and flesh we eat as resacrificing Christ. ..

Is there any Biblical support for that?

Hebrews 6:4-6

Sorry, I don't see how that supports your idea.

For it is impossible for those being once enlightened, and having tasted of the heavenly gift, and becoming sharers of the Holy Spirit, and tasting the good Word of God, and the works of power of a coming age, then falling away, it is impossible for them again to renew to repentance, crucifying again for themselves the Son of God, and putting Him to open shame.
Hebrews 6:4-6