Does scripture actually teach transubstantiation?

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Jesus said he is the path to life - did Jesus literally become a road?

Jesus said he was the Good Shepherd- did he ever herd real sheep?

Jesus said he was the light, was he literally illumination?

Jesus said he was a vine, was he actually a plant?

Jesus said he was a door, but was he REALLY?

Jesus said life giving water, did he literally become water?

It’s a shame you came in so late into this thread. I hope you understand we don’t want to repeat ourselves.

We all agree that these are parables and figurative talk. Let’s not waste our time answering these questions.

Jesus said he was the bridegroom, was he literally one?

Well, yeh - He was the bridegroom and the Church is The Bride. But nevermind - that’s a topic that should be discussed in a new thread.

Jesus spoke in parables. “Take this all of you and eat of it, this is my body which shall be given up for you. Eat this in memory of me.” You can’t say the figurative meaning to this?!

Well, I think it’s all about the priesthood. If you don’t believe in the priesthood ministry that Christ created, well then transubstantiation is not reasonable.

But if you believe that the priest acts in persona christi, then “this is my body” starts to take substance.

Personally, when Jesus held the bread in his hand and said “this is my body”, I find it hard to see how that is figurative. I mean, He never held a door in His hand and said “this door is me”.

 

[Randy_Carson]

When were the letters to the Corinthians written? 20-25 years after the resurrection?

If the Church was so wrong about its understanding of the Eucharist, why did Jesus not provide a correct interpretation of his words at the last supper to Paul who was not in attendance that night?

When was the Gospel of John written? 50-60 years after the resurrection?

Why did the Holy Spirit not inspire John to clarify what the Church had obviously misunderstood for half a century if, in fact, its understanding of the body and blood of Jesus was in error?

Why did God not anticipate the obvious error in interpretation of Jesus’ teaching concerning his body and blood found in John 6 and state the matter more precisely when the Gospel was finally recorded?

Could it be because there was no misunderstanding and that the Church has had it right all along?

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[revelations]

That’s an interesting theory – but it has nothing to do with me. Remember, I’m here to gain information for my own benefit – I have no preconceptions that I’ll actually “win” an argument here…

LOL, you have to remember these posts about the eucharist come up ALLLLL the time, so a lot of us just shut out all (name removed by moderator)ut and type the same diatribe. So far things have stayed pretty charitable, but that could change! (i hope not…)

If i may bring this post back on topic, the OP was asking about trans-substantiation, not the real presence. I don’t think transubstantiation is biblical, there is no overt reference to the concept. This is what split the Eastern Orthodox and the Latin rite, correct?

Anyways, my final (name removed by moderator)ut is that you cannot contemplate the eucharist without consulting history. History completes the rounded view of a lot of catholic doctrine. It’s kind of like only reading witness testimony in court in stead of actually bringing in the witnesses… I dunno.

-revelations

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… If i may bring this post back on topic, the OP was asking about trans-substantiation, not the real presence. I don’t think transubstantiation is biblical, there is no overt reference to the concept. This is what split the Eastern Orthodox and the Latin rite, correct? …

I don’t think so. I think the split between Orthodox and Catholic was over papal supremacy and infallibility.

I think Luther and Zwingli would split over their differences for the Eucharist. Ulrich Zwingli, a former catholic priest, was the leader of the Protestant Reformation in Switzerland. He supported Martin Luther, and took the Lutheran movement from Germany. But the support wouldn’t last long. The most important doctrinal issue they disagreed on was the nature of the Eucharist. Luther, like the Catholics, believed that the bread and wine of the Eucharist was spiritually transformed into the body and blood of Christ, while Zwingli believed that the Eucharist only symbolized the body and blood of Christ.

 

[pneuma07]

If i may bring this post back on topic, the OP was asking about trans-substantiation, not the real presence. I don’t think transubstantiation is biblical, there is no overt reference to the concept. This is what split the Eastern Orthodox and the Latin rite, correct?

Anyways, my final (name removed by moderator)ut is that you cannot contemplate the eucharist without consulting history. History completes the rounded view of a lot of catholic doctrine. It’s kind of like only reading witness testimony in court in stead of actually bringing in the witnesses… I dunno.

-revelations

Hi Revelations !

A first approach to get a specifically transubstantiation scriptural understanding, can be a plain reading of the gospel narratives of the Last Supper. Where we see that “the bread is His Body”. Simply. We don’t see “the bread contains His Body”, “in this bread there is His Body”, and no hint seems offered about the contemporary presence of two distinct essences or substances in or with the bread, or of something new within or alongside something which remains itself.
We know this point has been widely debated, of course.

As for the Orthodox view, as I could understand it, there is no
contradiction with transubstantiation. On the contrary, this concept is accepted, so long as we do not see it as a thorough explanation of how things happen, but state the fact that the bread does become His Body. And so long as there is not dogmatization. These caveat aside, the agreement between
Catholic position and EO position is striking. ( I hope some orthodox brother can confirm this short description )

And in another kind of thread ( ie not a purely scriptural one, as we have here), this agreement could be shown IMHO as a powerful argument in favor of transubstantiation. That leads us towards … History.

About which you have my complete support !

 

[CentralFLJames]

LOL, you have to remember these posts about the eucharist come up ALLLLL the time, so a lot of us just shut out all (name removed by moderator)ut and type the same diatribe. So far things have stayed pretty charitable, but that could change! (i hope not…)

If i may bring this post back on topic, the OP was asking about trans-substantiation, not the real presence. I don’t think transubstantiation is biblical, there is no overt reference to the concept. This is what split the Eastern Orthodox and the Latin rite, correct?

**Anyways, my final (name removed by moderator)ut is that you cannot contemplate the Eucharist without consulting history. History completes the rounded view of a lot of catholic doctrine. It’s kind of like only reading witness testimony in court in stead of actually bringing in the witnesses… **I dunno.

-revelations

Agree in the analogy of a trial. I never been entirely comfortable with how modern courts have a tendency to dismiss evidence that leads to the truth of the matter but often becomes inadmissible because it does not follow “the exact rules” of jurisprudence. The focus in law seems to be less justice and truth oriented as it is oriented toward making sure that one gives every extra advantage it can to the accused to mitigate the chances of a convicting somone wrongly.

A justice or truth based system of law would have both side’s lawyers as agents of the court bound by law to seek the truth and justice of the matter rather than seeking to prosecute or defend. Thus the defense would be required by law to present any truth it discovered and to mitigate the penalty through constructive cooperation with justice rather than operate to let an accused known privately to be guilty let go. A similar thing would apply with the prosecutor to abandon the case quickly if truth or evidence co-discovered between cooperating agents of the court revealed charges were without clear merit.

So in all that I think if somone is really interested in the truth of Jesus teaching they have to first of all recognize that the bible represents a work by the Early Catholic Church Fathers using their best informed insights, intellect, traditions and revelation to pick from a large collection of writings those things which were judged to be true. But not every truth was written down and was instead embodied and embraced through the early Church’s practices, traditions, prayers and other works. To me there is nothing more compelling than looking at tradition since how a person or institution lives and operates is what one truly believes. Thus to discount tradition, history and teaching and even artifacts of common usage (paintings on the graves in the catacombs, religious articles etc.) is to discount a huge treasury of truth.

What we call scripture is very important - but so too are the traditions and the teachings and even the attitudes of the early Christians (lots of martyrs - which greatly ratifies profound belief). I can’t imagine if archaeologists discovered a new old or new testament book or an artifact that was definitive evidence supporting or clarifying understandings in this area that anyone would not consider it simply because it was not in “The Bible”.

James

 

[guanophore]

I don’t hold that Christ can’t be in the bread. I simply hold that Christ did not choose to do it this way.

Please explain what you think He meant when He said “I am the bread of Life”, and refers to Himself as the Manna that comes down from heaven. How do you think the instruction should be fulfilled to “eat” Him so that we can have eternal life???

Also, please explain how the Church got it wrong. When did they lose track of what He meant?

  Jesus didn't just hold up the five loaves, say some words, and then suddenly have everyone no longer hungry, without any evidence of alteration to the loaves (though he certainly *could* have). And even if he had, that would still be a real, observable change.

How do you account for the fact that no one seems to have understood how the additional bread and fish appeared? Since they did not “see” it multiplied, does that mean it was not really multiplied? Are you one of those who believes that the real miracle was that Jesus got people to share, and that each persono pulled their own lunches out and shared with their neighbor?

 Show me a single miracle that claims any change to something physical which provides no observable evidence thereof.

Baptism was suggested, but I guess you have spurned this.

 With baptism, you say it is a spiritual transformation right? Therefore, there would *obviously* be no physical evidence of it! The spirit is not the flesh, though both are real. If you likewise said that the Eucharist was a transformation by which the spirit of Christ was placed with the physical bread, I wouldn't be arguing for a physical proof.

So, you are willing to accept that a spiritual reality has changed under the physical sign of baptism, but you cannot accept the same when the elements are bread and wine, instead of water?

The Catholic understanding of symbol is something that effects what it represents, and contains what it transmits. The waters of Baptism are sanctified because Jesus entered them and sanctified them, thereby making it possible for all those who enter to have their sins washed away.

   However, you claim that the Eucharist constitutes a physical ("fleshly") transformation into the flesh of Christ.

But it does not appear different, any more than the water used in baptism looks no different than tapwater.

This is why one should not compare apples with oranges. They don't mix well! If you're going to draw a parallel, it should be a *complete* parallel, not a pick-and-choose-certain-bits parallel.

I think your anti-Catholic bias has made it impossible for you to grasp the incarnational principle upon which the sacramental understanding is based.

 No one. I certainly wouldn't say that. A miracle of spirit, by definition, would have no physical signs. However, a miracle of the flesh (the bread) cannot possibly be called such without physical evidence.

This is a limitation that comes from yourself that you are placing on the Teaching of Jesus. It limits you, and prevents you from understanding and accepting the Truth. When Jesus emptied Himself, and took on the form of a servant, He was born into the world just as all babies are. He looked no different.

 Those effects are very tangible and observable, and thus constitute evidence.

It is my prayer that Jesus will allow you to put your hand into His side, and touch His wounded hands and feet that you may believe.

 Can you claim something that is demonstrably the result of the Eucharist?

Plenty, but none that will meet your criteria.

Even those that were at the Baptism of Jesus said it thundered, because they lacked faith, and could not hear the words of God.

 

[guanophore]

No. I’m saying they have faith in something which is not true. They believe without seeing, which in itself is not necessarily bad, but which is dangerous if done blindly.

I think this represents a dead end. You seem to have started this thread with an open mind, but now I see that this is not the case. You are beginning with the premise that the Real Presence “is not true”. Because of that, I don’t think it will be possible for you to answer the question in the Title with anything but “no”. It appears your anti-Catholic blinders will not allow you to open your mind to other possibilities.

I find myself also curious about your explanation of why people were getting sick and dying in Corinth for receiving the Body and Blood in an unworthy manner. You have equated reverence for the Body and Blood to respect for the American Flag. I wonder why people don’t get sick and die when they desecrate that?

 I don't recall saying "where in scripture does it talk about me changing physically". I asked where *salvation* says that. Yes, it says I am changed spiritually (as you have covered), but does it say that I'm a physically different person? Not at all, and thus I would not *expect* to see physical evidence.

You asked for an example of where you are “picking and choosing”, and this is a good one. You are changing the criteria to suit yourself, thus nullifying the Words of Christ.

 Also, if one were to claim a physical resurrection, without there ever being (at any point in time, even at the last day) any physical evidence of it, it would seem to me that such a claim is not legit. However, that's more a prophetic statement, so we should not expect to see it happen just yet.

Yet you deny the physical evidence of millions of believers and adherants that testify to the Real Presence for the last 2000 years? You say their testimony is false and irrelevant, because they believe in something that is not true. People did the same with reports of the resurrection.

 Many things are spiritual, yes, as is the symbolism of the last supper (aka Passover). I'm not fixated on physically seeing everything -- just physical things.

Clearly, the eucharist will not fit into the little box you have created.

  I'll try to get to more of these posts tonight.

Perhaps someday the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, and you will be open to the Apostolic Teaching, and you will read this thread again from the beginning with a truly open mind?

 

[guanophore]

Many of you make a somewhat compelling case, but I was disappointed by the lack of explanation as to exactly why or how a symbolic interpretation doesn’t make sense.

It makes perfect sense… If you accept the Apostolic understanding (which is innately Jewish) of a symbol, that which contains what it also represents. You are projecting your limited Western European concept of what “figurative” means, and not understanding the milieu in which the NT was written. It is a common mistake made by those who reject the Apostolic faiths.

On the one hand, you say that if it was figurative, surely the apostles would have been confused, or there would have been some extra explanation required, or something.

Indeed, an this is EXACTLY what we read in Jn. 6

On the other hand, I say that if it was literal, the idea of eating another’s flesh is so alien and foreign to the mind of the Jew (or the Greek, for that matter), that there would have been a great confusion, and many pointed questions asked of Jesus.

Indeed, an this is EXACTLY what we read in Jn. 6

Indeed, an this is EXACTLY what we read in Jn. 6 The fact is that scripture is unclear on this issue. It can be (as we have all demonstrated) taken in either a literal or a figurative sense with some semblance of sensibility.

When one considers that the scriptures were written by Catholics who believed and practiced the Real Presence, the scriptures are quite clear. What has happened is that you have separated the Sacred Writings from the Sacred Traditions from whence they sprang. This will result in constant misunderstandings and lack of clarity.

There is one question I’d like answered, however. I asked if Jesus should be taken to mean that his body was quite literally bread in John 6.

On response said simply “Yes” without any explanation to clarify this.

I did, because I was beginning to realize that you are rejecting all the explanations and evidence because you are looking at it through your anti-Catholic lenses. Jesus said Moses brought Manna from heaven for them to eat. He claims to be the Manna that comes down from heaven, by means of eating which we will have eternal life. How do you explain this away?

I’d like to hear more on this, and how one could think Jesus literally meant that he was actually bread.

The only way this makes sense is through the Eucharist, and you have already rejected the Apostolic Teaching on this matter.

 

[guanophore]

I was disappointed by the lack of explanation as to exactly why or how a symbolic interpretation doesn’t make sense.

It makes perfect sense… If you accept the Apostolic understanding (which is innately Jewish) of a symbol, that which contains what it also represents. You are projecting your limited Western European concept of what “figurative” means, and not understanding the milieu in which the NT was written.

On the one hand, you say that if it was figurative, surely the apostles would have been confused, or there would have been some extra explanation required, or something.

Indeed, an this is EXACTLY what we read in Jn. 6

On the other hand, I say that if it was literal, the idea of eating another’s flesh is so alien and foreign to the mind of the Jew (or the Greek, for that matter), that there would have been a great confusion, and many pointed questions asked of Jesus.

Indeed, an this is EXACTLY what we read in Jn. 6

The fact is that scripture is unclear on this issue. It can be (as we have all demonstrated) taken in either a literal or a figurative sense with some semblance of sensibility.

When one considers that the scriptures were written by Catholics who believed and practiced the Real Presence, the scriptures are quite clear. What has happened is that you have separated the Sacred Writings from the Sacred Traditions from whence they sprang. This will result in constant misunderstandings and lack of clarity.

There is one question I’d like answered, however. I asked if Jesus should be taken to mean that his body was quite literally bread in John 6.

On response said simply “Yes” without any explanation to clarify this.

I did, because I was beginning to realize that you are rejecting all the explanations and evidence because you are looking at it through your anti-Catholic lenses. Jesus said Moses brought Manna from heaven for them to eat. He claims to be the Manna that comes down from heaven, by means of eating which we will have eternal life. How do you explain this away?

I’d like to hear more on this, and how one could think Jesus literally meant that he was actually bread.

The only way this makes sense is through the Eucharist, and you have already rejected the Apostolic Teaching on this matter.

 

[toaslan]

PC Master:

A miracle of spirit, by definition, would have no physical signs. However, a miracle of the flesh (the bread) cannot possibly be called such without physical evidence.

I am a bit confused.

What is the definition of a “miracle of the spirit”?

I would have thought that the greatest miracle of all, the Incarnation–that’s a miracle, right?–That the Incarnation is a miracle “of the spirit” as well as a “miracle of the flesh”–in spades.

For example, Our Lord’s multiplication of the loaves & fishes is a call to faith in Him, a spiritual declaration and invitation. This message is carried by the inexplicable sudden abundance of food at His command: the spiritual message is “carried” by the material food being inexplicable except supernaturally.

The miracle of the Incarnation is the spiritual reality of God’s infinite love for mankind unpacked in flesh on the concrete earth.

**All miracles, by my definition, are supernatural events taking place in nature. ** The clue that an event is miraculous is when we are unable to truly explain it on the natural level.

PC, I respectfully submit that to try to divide up miracles into spiritual and fleshly is to denature “miracle.”

 

[Philthy]

As I said, there is no passage in which Jesus says that you must do X and Y. He says, if you do X, you will have eternal life. Then he says if you do Y, you will have eternal life. If we assume Jesus isn’t a liar, and we also assume that there are not multiple and distinct ways to heaven,

I believe you are making a logical error here. You have equated “getting to heaven” with “eternal life” - in all circumstances - and that is an error. There are those who come to faith in Christ, are saved, are participants in “eternal life”, who subsequently fall into unrepentant sin, fail to finish the race, and do not go to “heaven”. If your theology does not recognize such a possibility then there is an impossible contradiction - but it is one of your own making.
That much being said, I do believe there is a large umbrella underwhich all the salvific aspects of man’s cooperation with Gods grace falls - I’ll call it faith. Believing the gospel, being baptized, forgiving others, the Eucharist, etc are all forms of having “faith” in Christ. I will even go so far as to say that not all are “required”, but if you deny the truth of those means to grace you have broken faith. Whether that rupture constitutes a mortal sin is God’s call.

then we cannot possibly conclude that both are required unless they be different ways of expressing the exact same concept (and thus by fulfilling either of the two, you are actually fulfilling both).

There is another problem with this logic. It fails to recognize that other actions jeopardize the “eternal life” that we participate in. To deny that Jesus is God, for example, despite believing that he is a “son” of God, is to break the faith through which we are saved. In this way, it is not “required” that you “eat his flesh” and for a variety of reasons this may happen, but if you come to know the truth and choose to deny it, then you have broken the faith through which we become participants in eternal life. The same is true of forgiving others: it is not a requirement of the forgiveness of your sins (cf Matt 6:14) unless someone sins against you and you know it. Then it is a “requirement” of salvation.

Nope. Since belief will save you, belief and baptism, or belief and X, or adding any of a multitude of other things will save you. But only the belief is required.

Not quite - purposely not being baptized is a form of disbelief. You do not get to pick and choose what must be believed! Scripture is clear: If you believe AND are baptized you will be saved…Baptism… saves you" You are choosing to believe something that is never stated in Scripture. You choose to believe that “Baptism does not save you” when that is simply never stated in Scripture.

Con’d

 

[Philthy]

aCon’d
It’s very simple. How was circumcision symbolic of the covenant between God and Abraham?
It uniquely identified Jewish men from all others and that the inheritance was through the blood line.
How was the passover lamb a symbol of God’s salvation to his people (enduring to the present day)?

It recalls an actual event that occured in the history of the Jewish people which saved them from death.

I actually would draw a line of separation between John 6 and the last supper.

Yes, that would seem to be a prerequisite to your beliefs. It seems rather desperate to me.

In John 6, what do we see? “I am the bread which is come down from heaven.” Jesus was the vine, with us the branches, symbolizing that we should be connected to him and bear fruit from him. Likewise, Jesus is the bread of heaven, which fulfills our spiritual hunger (like the manna did for the physical hunger of the wandering tribes of Israel).

Yes, of course, but they ate the bread. How exactly does this tie into Jesus as the bread of life now? What are we to do with the “bread of life”? He specifically says that we are to eat it - but how can this be? It is fulfilled at the last supper…otherwise the analogy remains useless.

Now, at the last supper, what we see is not so much new symbolism being created, as it is redefinition…the Passover symbolized the salvation of God’s people (from their Egyptian slave masters).

No, it did not “symbolize” it. Passover is a recreation of the actual events that transpired: killing a lamb and eating it - there is absolutely no “symbolism” to the Passover. It is a participation in the identical events which actually took place. I think thats different than a symbol.

To explain the Passover, the people who escaped from Egypt were to tell their children how God saved them. The lamb was a big part of that story, and signified obedience to their creator.

I disagree. The lamb was the actual means that God used to save them - it was a not a “symbol” of their obedience. Eating the lamb was part of that saving act. Again, there really isnt a symbol there, is there?

Likewise, Jesus, in creating the New Covenant, saved the world from their sins. Thus, Jesus took a ritual feast well known to be representative of salvation, and gave further symbolism to signify his new salvatory work. Jesus said “do this, as often as you do it, in remembrance of me”. He wished for them to not simply remember God’s salvatory works in Egypt, but also the salvation of the New Covenant. It fits so well, and to me just seems like exactly how God would do things.

But the symbolism no longer has any meaning! Thats the whole point of a symbol - to have a simple easily recognizable meaning. Without the reality of a “bread” that we “eat” that “saves” us the Lords Supper simply makes no sense. Think of the majority of Christians for all time who never once participated in the “Passover” of what use is the symbol of bread in the Lords Last Supper? I find it lacking.

 

[Shiann]

oh good.

Definition Time. What is a sign? I see two different meanings impacting us on this thread.

The signs John reports to us are not, for example, like traffic stop-signs. A stop sign is a symbol of “stoppage.” It tells us we should/must stop. It does not, however, create or personify “stoppage.” We can run the sign, risking the accident or ticket.

A sign like John’s talking about is the kind of sign which effects/is what it signifies. If the stop sign were John’s kind of sign, it would be a cement wall across the road with the letters S-T-O-P engraved on it. Now, that would be stoppage.

The sign of God, which is the Bread of Life, IS God.

This sign is both literal and symbolic.

The Bread of Life is literally Christ Himself, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity

AND

The Bread of Life symbolizes eternal nourishment.

As Pax posted, "The events that precede the discourse on the bread of life are miracles/signs and they are as follows:
–Jesus changes the water into wine at the marriage feast of Cana.
–Jesus works the miracle of the loaves and fishes and thus feeds the multitudes.
–Jesus then walks on water.

When Our Lord walked on water, the act conveyed the message that He had the power of God over nature. The act also WAS God in the midst of ruling nature.

Exactly, Thank you!

 

[SPH1]

In verse 63, Jesus explains…

John 6:63 Amplified63 It is the Spirit Who gives life [He is the Life-giver]; the flesh conveys no benefit whatever [there is no profit in it]. The words (truths) that I have been speaking to you are spirit and life.

Many non-Catholics foolishly bring up this verse as an attempt to attack the Real Presence. But obviously Christ was not saying that HIS flesh profits nothing, for Christ’s flesh is what brings life to the world.

“I myself am the living bread come down from heaven…the bread I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.” John 6:51To claim that Christ’s flesh (sacrificial death) profits nothing is a heresy of the highest caliber.

To deny Christ’s flesh as profitable is also, IMO, a denial (and/or symbolizing) of the Incarnation.

 

[toaslan]

Exactly, Thank you!

Hey, Shiann! I’m glad this:
The Bread of Life is literally Christ Himself, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity
AND
The Bread of Life symbolizes eternal nourishment.
made sense to somebody besides me!

 

[toaslan]

…they ate the bread (manna). …What are we to do with the “bread of life”? He specifically says that we are to eat it - but how can this be? It is fulfilled at the last supper…otherwise the analogy remains useless…

Phil, I don’t want to miss your current point. So, may I ask you, how would this not answer your above questions: “We are to eat Christ as in getting our spiritual nourishment from faith in Christ, as the Israelites ate manna and got their physical nourishment from that”? There is still some parallel in place… I guess the question might then be, why did Our Lord say “eat” or “bread”? Why not say, “be spiritually nourished by having faith in Me?”

Philthy:

The lamb was the actual means that God used to save them - it was a not a “symbol” of their obedience. Eating the lamb was part of that saving act. Again, there really isnt a symbol there, is there

Well, first there is the actual event–but it is also symbolic at the same time…

The Israelites had to obey God’s command to use the blood of the perfect lamb to annoint their front door posts. Any door without the actual blood was not safe from the death about to fall on the homes of the Egyptians. If an Israelite failed to actually paint his door with this particular hot red blood–and not just any convenient blood, or with some symbol of blood like chalking on the word “blood”–the idea is that his firstborn too would die.

Then, of course, the eating–gnawing, chewing, masticating!–of the cooked lamb, as commanded.

Doing these actual actions in obedience to God resulted in His saving the people.

These actions were literal, not merely symbolic, though they were certainly symbolic too (prefiguring being perfectly saved by the blood of the Perfect Lamb).

Philthy:

But the symbolism no longer has any meaning! Thats the whole point of a symbol - to have a simple easily recognizable meaning. Without the reality of a “bread” that we “eat” that “saves” us the Lords Supper simply makes no sense.

Yes.

If Communion is bread and wine consumed in a church, this food does not itself give eternal life, does it?

If Communion is Christ Himself (Body,Blood,Soul&Divinity), then eating It is eating salvation Himself, and since we are what we eat, we do thereby gain eternal life, right?

In order to have a “bread” that we “eat” that “saves” us
AND
In order for the symbols to have easily recognizable meanings,
THEN
we need to have Christ=Bread so that we can eat Him and be nourished with eternal life.

Am I understanding your point, Phil?

 

[maryj]

We seem to be going in circles here. And Pc has stated himself that he is not here to win an argument, only for information. So I at this time will accept that to be true. I’ve only got one more bit to add to this. And yes I know we are speaking of Transubstantiation, not real presence…but it needs be pointed out…
John 6… Bread of life discourse… So the people go looking for Jesus (looking to see Him) where you been, when’d ya get here? His answer to them…You don’t come looking for me because you saw a sign, but because you ate the loaves and were filled. He tells them “I’ll give you the food that does not perish, but food that will endure. so they ask, “what can we do to accomplish the works of God” I think we know the answer"Believe in the one he sent”. alright then what was their next statments, well just give us a sign, that we may SEE and believe in you. Our ancestors ate the Manna. He says “Amen, Amen (true, true) but it wasn’t Moses, it was my Father that gives the true bread” " For the bread of God is that which came down from heaven and gives life to the world" (who gives life to the world??) So they ask for this bread, His response “I am the bread of life”
Now I’ll get to my point… John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who SEES the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him on the last day. How is it that some 2000 years later we SEE the Son? And after all of this, after he tells them this is the WILL of the Father, what do they murmur…
Isn’t this just Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother?
Isn’t this just bread and wine???
and Jesus said " Stop murmuring among yourselves’
Which is what I’m planning on doing. done murmuring now. PC God Bless you and remember our Lords words “they shall all be taught by God”

 

[Philthy]

Phil, I don’t want to miss your current point. So, may I ask you, how would this not answer your above questions: “We are to eat Christ as in getting our spiritual nourishment from faith in Christ, as the Israelites ate manna and got their physical nourishment from that”?

The reason that this suggestion does not address my point is that there is no way to “eat Christ” apart from the Eucharist. What the heck does “eat Christ for spiritual nourishment” mean?
It’s a stupid analogy without the Eucharist. Im sorry if that seems harsh, but its simply a bad analogy.
As to the rest of your post and this comment…

Am I understanding your point, Phil?

Yes you seem to understand my points pretty well. :yup:

 

[toaslan]

… there is no way to “eat Christ” apart from the Eucharist. What the heck does “eat Christ for spiritual nourishment” mean?..It’s a stupid analogy without the Eucharist.

Thanks, yes: it is empty. * It’s certainly English but there is no sort of meaning in it* (I think I’m quoting Alice in Wonderland).