• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christian: Real Presence

camus-msu

New Member
"Just some things to consider:
John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat? "

In response to this, I would like to point out the literary even where Jesus talks of being "born again" and the man is baffled and wonders if he has to crawl back into his mother's womb. Misunderstandings happen often when someone takes figurative language too literally.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Hiya camus... glad you decided to post!
camus-msu said:
I find it hard to believe that you put so much stock in the Council of Trent who were hundreds of years after the alleged life and death of Jesus.
Ummmm ... don't YOU live about two THOUSAND years after the life and death of Jesus?

... and what the heck does Trent have to do with this? Real presence was DEFINED at Trent... but it was a belief of the Christian faith LONG before that. Just a few examples:
Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Heck.... the 2nd and 3rd century Jews called us "cannibals".... did you bring up Trent because you have not learned any Christian history yet? Well, there is always time to educate yourself.
By the way the talk of John 6 seems naive to me. Not only is John the least reliable gospel, historically, but Jesus also uses many other terms like vine, door, light, etc., which people fully understand to be symbolic.
You have the right to your opinion... but us "naive" Christians put stock in the Holy Spirit.... the same spirit that guided those early Christians to the truth of the Real Presence.
In response to this, I would like to point out the literary even where Jesus talks of being "born again" and the man is baffled and wonders if he has to crawl back into his mother's womb.
Hmmm... but yet Jesus took the time to explain himself and show what being "born again" really meant.... but in John, he lets them walk away.... hmm, I wonder where we could think he was being literal... I guess we've just been naive for 2,000 years... glad you've come along to set us straight! ;)

Peace... and keep posting!
Scott
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Darn it... I just realized camus is an atheist.... but I'll let this one slide.

Just a reminder, this is the SAME FAITH debate forum, and this particular thread is for CHRISTIANS ONLY.
 

Steve

Active Member
I belive it to be symbolic, we are to do it in remeberance of the sacrifice Jesus made for us.

Luke 22:19-20
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.


For those who belive that it really is the literal body and blood of Christ does that mean that you belive at the last supper when Jesus told the disciples "this is my body" they really thought they were eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood while he sat there with them?

Also like NetDoc mentioned, if it is flesh and blood why dosnt it taste like it? If somthing literally changes then it literally changes, right? - yet any sign that a literal change takes place is not present. We know that Jesus is alive and physically risen from the dead, at each mass is he literally re-giving his flesh? No, the sacrifice was once for all. Taking the elements symbolises our accepting Jesus' sacrifice, that its only by his flesh and blood that we can be cleanesed.

Hebrews 10:10-14
And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.



http://www.carm.org/catholic/transubstantiation.htm has more on this topic.
 

Uncertaindrummer

Active Member
camus-msu said:
"Just some things to consider:
John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat? "

In response to this, I would like to point out the literary even where Jesus talks of being "born again" and the man is baffled and wonders if he has to crawl back into his mother's womb. Misunderstandings happen often when someone takes figurative language too literally.
Yes, but does Nicodemus leave Jesus? No. Jesus could have called out to those people who misunderstood him: "Wait folks, I was just being figurative!", but He doesn't. Instead He asks the Apostles if they too will leave Him, and Peter replies as we all should, "To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life".
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Steve said:
I belive it to be symbolic, we are to do it in remeberance of the sacrifice Jesus made for us.
You have every right to your opinion... but I'd like to point out that whether or not it is symbolic is a separate issue than why we are to celebrate communion. Catholic do it in remembrance of the sacrafice that Jesus made for us as well... same as you.
For those who belive that it really is the literal body and blood of Christ does that mean that you belive at the last supper when Jesus told the disciples "this is my body" they really thought they were eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood while he sat there with them?
Ummm.... do you think that ALL saying of Jesus have the same meaning both BEFORE and AFTER his death?
Also like NetDoc mentioned, if it is flesh and blood why dosnt it taste like it?
When you become a "new creature" in Christ... do you transform into a cow or something?
Taking the elements symbolises our accepting Jesus' sacrifice, that its only by his flesh and blood that we can be cleanesed.
How can you be cleansed by something that happened in the past... if the sacrafice was "once for all" (which it was, but not the way you think..) then how does it affect you 2,000 years later?
Hebrews 10:10-14,
Great verses... but they don't prove your point... this speaks towards the rituals of Jewish priests.... Catholics are not Jews.
http://www.carm.org has more on this topic.
No thanks... I think I'll stay away from the most hateful, anti-Catholic site on the net.:mad:
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Scott
Is it Ok to believe that the Blood and Body are there as you take communion, in spirit form.
Rather than the bread and wine changing form.
Terry
________________________________
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Sure it's "OK" Terry.... I don't judge other faiths.

I just believe that Scripture and history clearly show that the Eucharist is more than "spirit form" or symbolic.... just as Christ came to us in physical form, not just in spirit form... he comes to me every day in the Eucharist---- both physically AND spiritually..... and I must admit though, that I would love for every Christian to come to know and love Christ in the Eucharist... it has been, and always will be, the source and summit of the Christian faith.

Peace my friend,
Scott
 

camus-msu

New Member
I apologize...I didn't know this was a same faith only discussion. However, I would like to say a quick response since I was rebutted myself. Quoting Ignatius and Justin Martyr or even the gospels, for that matter, means nothing to me. We have no hard evidence of anything that Jesus actually said. The "Church Fathers" you mentioned were still nowhere near the time of Jesus' life and the gospels were also written many years after. You can quote at me all day long, but the truth is that none of us will ever really know exactly what Jesus said and the book of John is the absolutely least reliable in the canon. By the way, I do know my Christian history ( I have a degree in it ); however, I am not completely familiar with all of Catholic history and despite the meaning of the word there is a lot more to Christianity than just the early Catholic Church.

Sorry again for posting on a same-faith thread.
 

Mike182

Flaming Queer
is jesus present when i take the bread and the wine - absolutely ye swith no question of a doubt

does that bread and that wine transform into chrsits actual blood and body - i dont think so - but it does still carry his healing and mercy and love

when i take communion - no matter what burdens my heart i can lay it down at the cross and no longer worry abou tit

so - is it con or substanciation - or is it just symbolic? honestly - im not sure

i dont believe it is just symbolic - christ did it for a reason and he is with us always where ever we are

for me - taking communion is a chance to really just engage with God in a time specifically set aside - so even if it does nothign else it keeps me grounded in God

amen
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

I guess that is real hard for some people to grasp and believe. It's incredible to me how easily some dismiss the very words of Christ just because they don’t understand them and can’t believe them.

The Least
~Victor
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Victor said:
55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

I guess that is real hard for some people to grasp and believe. It's incredible to me how easily some dismiss the very words of Christ just because they don’t understand them and can’t believe them.

The Least
~Victor
Victor,

We all do that -- even you. There is not one person on this forum who doesn't pick and choose which verses should be taken literally and which ones should be taken figuratively. Some people (probably you and I) rely on our respective churches to make the distinction, while others pretty much make their own decisions. By the way, which translation specifically uses the word "real"? Does the Catholic Bible say that, because the KJV doesn't?

Kathryn
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Katzpur said:
By the way, which translation specifically uses the word "real"? Does the Catholic Bible say that, because the KJV doesn't?
John 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. Pretty clear to me with the KJV as well.... and as far as personal interpretations go, I think the 15-20 other reasons I provided speak towards the literal in this verse.... but yes, it's a matter of choice.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Katzpur, why would you say this:
Katzpur said:
We all do that -- even you. There is not one person on this forum who doesn't pick and choose which verses should be taken literally and which ones should be taken figuratively.
If you knew this:
Katzpur said:
Some people (probably you and I) rely on our respective churches to make the distinction, while others pretty much make their own decisions.
to be true?

By the way, which translation specifically uses the word "real"? Does the Catholic Bible say that, because the KJV doesn't?
Ah, Scott beat me to it.

Hope that helps.

The Least
~Victor
 

true blood

Active Member
"holy communion" is interesting to me mainly because it was by revelation, Jesus instituted this memorial to remember his death, before his suffering and death. But in like Matthew 26:26 "this is my body" can not be literal. We do not literally eat Jesus Christ's body. I suppose centuries of argumentation could have been avoided if people had recognized a very simple figure of speech called metaphor. However, there is in depth teaching involving the blood and the body that go back to Moses time. God said to Moses that he should tell the people to do two things: 1, take the blood of the lamb and sprinkle it on the lintel and the side posts of the door and 2, eat the flesh. The blood and the flesh were equally important, equall significant, so far as the Word of God and people of Israel were concerned. Note something else, when the Lord passed over Egypt and the firstborn of the Egyptians were slain, God protected the homes of the children of Israel because of the blood they sprinkled on the lintel and side posts. Only the blood protected them. If any Hebrew father had said, "Oh the Word which Moses is speaking is non-sense; I don't believe in that kind of stuff. It's foolish to kill a lamb and sprinkle the blood on our door and lintel, and then think the destroyer will not come. I will not do it." If the father had actually believed this, the eldest son of that family would have died along with the firstborn of the unbelieving Egyptians. What was the purpose of the command, "...eat the flesh...? God told them to eat the flesh of the lamb so that their physical needs would be met. They ate physical health to themselves. The destroyer passed over without harming the obedient believers, and the next morning everyone was whole in every way. Just as the blood of the lamb was the covering for the sins of the Israel, so the blood of Jesus Christ was shed for sin. The body of Christ was offered for the consequences of sin, that is, sickness, disease and want, just as the eating of the flesh was the healing for the physical needs of the children of Israel.
 

true blood

Active Member
michel said:
I am happy with the litteral; maybe I am just lucky...........:)
You are a primary example when Jesus said "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of bread, and drink of cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many weak and sickly among you, and many sleep." Basicly Jesus is accusing those who misunderstand this memorial as the cause of "many who are weak and sickly, and dead". And we have it narrowed down to either a 1)literal meaning in which we literally eat Jesus Christ's body or 2) a figurative usage in which a metaphor is used where the verb "is" can be replaced by the word "represents." I believe Jesus was emphatically saying, "This bread represents my body." Likewise the wine in the cup represented his blood. So one of us is "not discerning the Lord's body" thus guilty of supporting such doctrine which causes weakness and sickness and death. Why are you "happy" in the doctrine you support that goes against the rules of language and logic?
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
true blood said:
You are a primary example when Jesus said "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of bread, and drink of cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many weak and sickly among you, and many sleep." Basicly Jesus is accusing those who misunderstand this memorial as the cause of "many who are weak and sickly, and dead". And we have it narrowed down to either a 1)literal meaning in which we literally eat Jesus Christ's body or 2) a figurative usage in which a metaphor is used where the verb "is" can be replaced by the word "represents." I believe Jesus was emphatically saying, "This bread represents my body." Likewise the wine in the cup represented his blood. So one of us is "not discerning the Lord's body" thus guilty of supporting such doctrine which causes weakness and sickness and death. Why are you "happy" in the doctrine you support that goes against the rules of language and logic?
Because I see it as a literall 'representation' of Christ - I don't mean I am eating Jesus' flesh - or drinking his blood - but rather accepting him, in as near a physical way as we will ever get.:)
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
true blood said:
Why are you "happy" in the doctrine you support that goes against the rules of language and logic?
I can't speak for Michel, but would like to point out that just because you believe Communion to be symbolic, does not mean that we go against the rules of language and logic... only your rules.

One more time:
Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Touto estin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood.

1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - "touto mou estin to soma." The statement is "this is really" my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.


Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants (this means you true blood) must argue that Jesus was really saying "this represents (not is) my body and blood." However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for "represent," but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for "estin" which means "is."

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, "the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ's body and blood?" Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul's questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word "koinonia" describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.

Now... what "rules" were you speaking of again?;)
 
Top