metal1633: #170:
Irenaeus
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (*Against Heresies *
4:33–32 ).
Odd: “if the Lord were from other than the Father?” That would explain how someone can say anything they desired, even lies, so what was Irenaeus’ point?
If Christ were not God how could he rightly say the bread is His body?
Huh? Perhaps you can explain his argument, it appears too confused to me.
If I were Irenaeus the argument would be"How could Christ who definitely is God the Son of the Father and therefore cannot lie say the bread and wine are His body and blood if they are not?"
However the premises is incorrect, it is clear all Christ says (“This cup *is *the new testament in my blood… …I am the bread from heaven…)” and by the apparent contradiction (“eat my flesh for life…it is the spirit who quickens, the flesh profits nothing at all”) that the same words must refer to different things (sometimes are figurative) otherwise some or all that He says is in error and therefore could not be spoken by The Eternal Son of God who cannot lie or make mistakes.
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).
Cyril of Jerusalem
Where is it said our blood flows from the Eucharist cup? Clearly Piosity has inspired babble not found in the Bible:
NKJ Proverbs 10:19 In the multitude of words sin is not lacking, But he who restrains his lips *is *wise.
If Cyril’s flesh were “capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him”
Where is his flesh now?
It should be self evident Infinite God cannot occupy the space of anything finite for then all room for the latter ceases to exist.
There is no space in the infinite for anything finite to exist.
In other words, Wherever God’s infinite substance is, no space remains for anything else. The finite is always obliterated by the infinte.
This concept is fundamental to the idea of Christ’s two natures which are not (nor cannot) be fused or commingled.
If any here had trouble picturing this, the analogy of thought to brain is helpful. While thoughts inhabit the organ of the brain the substance of thought and substance of brain never mingle or become confused.
Monophysite like Eucharist is a gross error of elementary logic.
SNIP
I must repeat a fundamental fact, citing ECF’s and papal representatives for “real presence” is immaterial to a sola scripturaist like myself.
It is my proposition Christ spoke figuratively when He said the species were His body and blood. The only way to prove or disprove that is by appeal to the data of Scripture.