How well can you answer this question?

[AgnosTheist]

There was no aura, glow or magic about Jesus’ physical appearance. It was his SUBSTANCE by which people recognized who he WAS. Why? wouldn’t people have paid more attention if he came as a mighty champion, a noble prince, rippling with muscle, square jaw, deep voice and 15 feet tall? But that wasn’t his plan. He wants us to choose him based on what we can plainly perceive with our reason and hearts, but can also reject if we chose to listen to our more base instincts.

you know, his birth and first 30 years of life was so plain that almost nobody really paid him any special attention. What got him into stardom was his magical talent & top notch human wisdom & charisma, or so the story says. Same thing with the Eucharist, without all the hype and propaganda of it being ‘the Real Presence’, it wont really be recognized as anything beyond a plain waffer. Its all in the head. Its all mental manipulation. Its all showmanship.

 

[AgnosTheist]

In reality the consecrated bread & wine is really just symbolism in function.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Then I would take it that symbolism is a good term, as in it represents a concept of blood and flesh.

being a symbol isnt a bad thing. Because thats what it is. But how I treat and respect that symbol can mean alot.

I agree. Some protestant churches have their own bread & wine celebration and it works just as well as catholic eucharists. makes them feel good, makes them feel closer together, and most important of all it refreshes their appreciation of what Jesus did.

 

[Wildkit]

^ i dont understand. how different is orthodox eucharist from roman eucharist? doesnt the orthodox believe that the bread transforms into the actual flesh of jesus?

What get’s me is how these surgeons in the 8th century cut out a piece of heart that has been able to be tested in the 20th century, and here we now are all concerned with transubstantiation?

trosch.org/inx/lanciano.html

There are more eucharistic miracles,……google them if one is inclined.

 

[Montalban]

it doesnt really say that a transformation went into effect. it could easily be an act of communal rememberance of jesus.

Didn’t you read the passages? Paul says it’s not just a communal meal. He says If you’re hungry, stay at home - in other words, it’s not a ‘meal’.

You have Jesus saying it’s real.

People question him.

He repeats it.

what I meant was, in reality a transubstantiated host still remains a physical host. no alteration in its chemistry & substance. and eating it does no special effect aside from that feel good feeling that lasts about an hour. so the literal food is not really a literal flesh. its all just in the mind.

No. It is literal flesh and blood. Clear cola doesn’t look like cola. It’s a weak analogy I know, 'cause clear cola tastes like cola, but you get the picture, it doesn’t have to appear to be to be

 

[Pax]

For those that do not believe in the “real presence,” I would suggest that you do a forum search and read the many threads dedicated to this topic. You will get a good education on the merits of the Catholic case. Scripturally, the Catholic position wins hands down.

 

[cascherman]

My initial reaction to your post is a few questions back.

In the same sense, why did Jesus say to men who exercised demons in Jesus’ name, " I do not know you. " ?

and as well, why would Jesus not recognize as his disciple any man who came down the street saying he is his disciple, yet teaching differing things?

My answer to my own questions is because they did not believe the same thing. What kind of chaos would be in the Church Christ founded if anyone who ever claims to be working in Jesus’ name was able to ordain anyone they wanted?

Why would the Catholic Church allow Eucharist to someone who doesn’t believe it is what the Catholic Church says it is. Why would you want to take part if you don’t believe?

 

[Kitty_Chan]

So answer this *why *does it have to be **literal **flesh and blood.

To quote my earlier posts if thats ok.

as one currentely researching about communion and Eucharist and I will add totally undecided. I agree here, this part is actually a question in part I have into the apologists, its been 2 wks Im starting to doubt a answer.

Anyway, Im with you here, it technically does not physically change. So no matter what, one is only imagining or believing it to be the actual flesh and blood. And in the defination of it, that makes it symbolic. Which I know everyone hates that word.

And on the circle goes . . .

Im personally starting to wonder that its such a bone of contention, and it shouldnt be. The more important part is remembering what Our Lord did for us. And examining ourselves to be ready. And thats getting buried under semantics.

Then I would take it that symbolism is a good term, as in it represents a concept of blood and flesh.

being a symbol isnt a bad thing. Because thats what it is. But how I treat and respect that symbol can mean alot.

I understand that it is His flesh and blood when I look at it, as its symbolic of them. It reminds me. Thats the point of remembering.

Maybe I see things different somehow, maybe I dont need explaination of imagining it turning to actual flesh, I think of it that way anyway

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

“Show me in Scripture where…”

Why does it have to be in Scripture?

 

[cascherman]

So answer this why does it have to be **literal **flesh and blood.

To quote my earlier posts if thats ok.

There is no reason to believe that Christ was instituting a symbol of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. When someone says to me “this IS that” I do not take it to mean ‘this is a symbol of that’, for that to be true I would expect to see something like “this is like that” or “this is like my body”.

Christ lost followers and the Jews wanted to stone him for what he said. People said to each other “This saying is hard, who can accept it?”. Why is it hard if it’s just a symbol?

How the Church takes Christ instituting the Eucharist is not by inserting symbolism, we take him for his word.

 

[Montalban]

Why would the Catholic Church allow Eucharist to someone who doesn’t believe it is what the Catholic Church says it is. Why would you want to take part if you don’t believe?

You’re not allowed the Eucharist in Orthodoxy unless you’re Orthodox

 

[cruisin]

I have questions:

Who has partaken of the passover with a Jewish family?

Is not the passover meal filled with symbolism? Each part to remind the participant of something?

Was this not what the desciples were partaking in when he said “take eat this is my body”.

From my understanding there are several times when the wine and bread are used to represent different parts of the meal. One part talks about the coming messiah. Was this where they where in the meal process when He said “take eat this is my body”

This has been reported that to be on the 3rd cup. I scripture seems to support this.
I believe that Jesus was again refering to the familiarity of the participants. Not us.

Should we not make sure we understand the culture and what was happening.

 

[Montalban]

I have questions:

Who has partaken of the passover with a Jewish family?

Is not the passover meal filled with symbolism? Each part to remind the participant of something?

We operate under a New Convenant - which is what Jesus said at the Last Supper

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Montalban

I wonder if cruzin has a point?? looking at the Temple and the skins what the priest wore etc one can understand things later on. why wouldnt what Jesus was doing at the last supper be “from” the passover meal, I dont understand??

And if you look at what I posted hopefully you notice I do understand it to be flesh and blood and actually have no problem at all with it being that, and have always thought that, and didnt learn that from a catholic church.

But I want to understand it now I realise others dont see it that way, and I was not aware the protestants I went to church with had a different view. Ive always kept a good distance from it, because of the seriousness of it. hope that helps anyone understand why I ask.

And when i see what cruzin says there is logic in it, everything with God builds on previous things moving forward.

 

[cruisin]

“We operate under a New Convenant - which is what Jesus said at the Last Supper”

are you saying this invalidates my question?

and thus invalidates the entire old testiment Law?

 

[cruisin]

Kitty,

I take the communion at my church very serious. It is not a joke or something to be taken litely.

It is a time to remember what Christ did for me. Something I was never going to be able to do myself.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Crusin

That is great I hope you dont think I inferred you didnt!

Im in a awful place that in so many yrs Ive only partaken possibly 8 times with the last one being at a Catholic church. Its a headache for me Im trying to wrestle with, but wrestle I will.

can I ask what church you go to, if you want pm me to keep the thread on track.

But I do agree with you if Ive understood you right - everything in the old is reflected in the new? is this right if so I still think theres a point to what your saying about passover.

 

[Erich]

In the same sense, why did Jesus say to men who exercised demons in Jesus’ name, " I do not know you. " ?

and as well, why would Jesus not recognize as his disciple any man who came down the street saying he is his disciple, yet teaching differing things?

Because He didn’t appoint them. From Scripture (and the article I referenced earlier) we see the following:

• God is the source of this mission * and authority
• He passes it to Jesus (“the Father has sent me… all authority has been given to me”)
• Jesus passes it on - along with “all authority” to act “in my name” - to the Apostles (“as the Father has sent me, * so I send you,” “go and make disciples”)
• The Apostles pass the mission and authority on to men like St. Timothy and St. Titus (“with all authority” Tit 2:15)
• The second apostolic generation is expected to entrust the mission to the next generation, ad infinitum
  …
  (T)he Scriptures are a tool for “teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” but who is to use this tool for these purposes? That is, who has the authority to teach, reproof, correct, and train others in righteousness? The “man of God” has this authority.
  …
  Contrary to the opinion that the “man of God” can be any Christian without distinction, Scripture itself will not allow such an interpretation, insisting that the “man of God” is a figure of authority, either commissioned by God directly through Divine Intervention (such as Moses or the Angel), or appointed by another holder of authority (such as Samuel, David, Elisha, and St. Timothy).
  …
  Biblically, there is only one way to become a legitimate ambassador of Christ, or “pastor”: by appointment from a superior. This can be done in two ways: being commissioned by a legitimate ambassador (apostolic succession), or being called directly by God. We saw examples of this in Scripture already: Ss. Timothy and Titus were appointed to their positions of authority by succession, Moses was appointed to his position directly by God, with no human mediation.
  …
  (I)t has now been shown, from Scripture, that apostolic succession is the ordinary means of transmitting apostolic authority and the Gospel message
  …
  Scripture teaches that this supernatural, extraordinary calling by God directly is the exception, not the rule. The rule is appointment by succession (as in the case of the kings, prophets, and the second generation of apostles). In the exceptional, extraordinary case, Scripture requires the proof of miracles, signs, and wonders for authenticity.
  …
  (E)ven Jesus submitted to this proof-test.**

 

[Pax]

There is absolutely no purpose in having mere symbolism in the discourse on the bread of life in John 6, the Last Supper, or Corinthians chapters 10 and 11.

We can remember the crucifixion by way of the crucifixion accounts as well as other areas of the NT letters. We do not need the Last Supper meal for that purpose. The intent and purpose of the words “This is my body” and “This is my Blood” is quite clear.

Literal or symbolic and why? It is literal because Jesus said it was in the discourse on the bread of life. It is literal because it is necessary for us. It is necessary for us because Jesus says it is.

Jesus says it is in John 6:53-54 which reads as follows:
"So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

And how do we know it is literal? We know it is literal because Jesus says that his flesh and blood are true food and true drink four different times during the discourse and he uses progressively stronger language as he goes along. In the Greek Jesus starts with the word “phago” which literally means “to eat.” He then continues with the word “trogo” which means to “gnaw or to chew.” The latter usage makes it more graphic and literal to remove any lingering doubts as to his intention.

Likewise, Jesus says that the bread that he will give us to eat is the same flesh that will hang upon the cross. We see this in John 6:51 where it says:

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

If the bread that Jesus says is his flesh is symbolic, than his flesh that hung upon the cross must also be symbolic. There is nothing about the discourse on the bread of life that logically points to a symbolic understanding. Jesus was clear in the discourse and he was clear at the Last Supper. Likewise, Paul is clear in 1 Corinthians chapters 10 and 11. Likewise, all of the early Christian writers were clear on the issue as well.

Ignatius of Antioch, who was ordained by the apostle John, wrote in his letter to the Church at Smyrna the following:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins,and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes.”

I hope this helps.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Yes Pax it helps, where is the part is it after John 6:53-54 where He uses the stronger language? just after that? and where is the part about them walking out too, please?

I have a real hard time with the word symbol, because even if its symbolic its not “mere” to me in any way. I find symbols powerful, the cross is a symbol and real at the same time. A flag is a symbol and real. There is meaning of something real.

Problem is I do and have always seen communion as literal, why who knows? perhaps God told me, bold statement but apparentely I didnt pick it up at the protestant churches I attended. So i got it from somewhere.

Up to probably several months ago, I never thought there was a difference between catholics and protestants. Maybe wine/juice and wafers/bread stuff but thats it.

I always thought of it as Blood and Body even if someone called it a symbol. See I could use in a sentence; the Body and the Wine or the Blood and the Bread interchangeably.

This is why the subject is difficult for me.