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....

[historia]

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.

It's not clear to me why anyone would jump to that conclusion.

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]

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.

It's not clear to me why anyone would jump to that conclusion.

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 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?

[Wootah]

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.

It's not clear to me why anyone would jump to that conclusion.

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?

Well 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.

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.

[historia]

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?

Well yes the process of eating is definitely related to sacrifice.

Okay, but that's not what I asked.

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]

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?

Well yes the process of eating is definitely related to sacrifice.

Okay, but that's not what I asked.

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?

Actually I disagree.

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.

[historia]

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?

Well yes the process of eating is definitely related to sacrifice.

Okay, but that's not what I asked.

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?

Actually I disagree.

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.

Okay, 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.

In that case, I would simply advise you not to adopt this unusual perspective, and your objection resolves itself.