Is the "Real Presence" real?

[SyCarl]

Outside of the Gospels the major reference to the Lord’s Supper is by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11.

Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you. For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.
(1 Corinthians 11:20-34 NASB)

Here Paul uses words of consecration similar to those found in the Gospel accounts. He then goes on to elaborate about the manner of eating. In his discussion, whenever he refers to what is eaten, Paul refers to it as bread and the cup. He does use “the body and the blood of the Lord” when referring to those who eat the bread and drink the cup unworthily. However, he does not apply these words to what is actually eaten and drunk; he still refers to those as the bread and the cup. What then does Paul mean when he says we shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord? Paul speaks of judging several times in the verses following the comment about being guilty if we eat and drink unworthily. He tells us that we must examine ourselves since we drink judgment to ourselves if we do not judge the body rightly. It is apparent here that he is talking about us judging our own condition when he refers to judging the body rightly, coming as it does right after the direction to examine ourselves. It is followed by a statement again referring to the judging of our own condition. It does not mean failure to recognize the bread as being the Lord’s body. This is also clear from the fact that when Paul describes the effects of eating unworthily he refers to our relationship with one another, not the nature of the elements. Paul is basically telling us that we must be right with one another when we partake of the Supper. If we are not then we denigrate the Lord’s sacrifice which we are remembering. It is similar to crucifying the Lord again as found in Hebrews.

For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.
(Hebrews 6:4-6 NASB)

Paul also speaks of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 10.

Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar? What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.
(1 Corinthians 10:16-21 NASB)

Even though he refers to the body and blood of Jesus, he also refers to them as bread and the cup.

Finally, while the Jewish dietary laws do not apply anymore, the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem did impose restrictions on what could be eaten.

“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.” (Acts 15:28-29 NASB)

Would we have been told not to eat blood is this was contrary to Jesus’ direction with respect to the Eucharist?

 

[SyCarl]

I hope that I am not perceived as being anti-Catholic. I am not. I am merely try explain why I believe as I do. As I have said before, I believe in the real presence, just not the same way as Catholics do. I think that transubstantiation tries to explain too much of what is a mystery. Whatever we think or understand, God will do what He wills in the sacrament.

Again, if I am coming off as anti-Catholic I apologize.

 

[c659smith]

I hope that I am not perceived as being anti-Catholic. I am not. I am merely try explain why I believe as I do. As I have said before, I believe in the real presence, just not the same way as Catholics do. I think that transubstantiation tries to explain too much of what is a mystery. Whatever we think or understand, God will do what He wills in the sacrament.

Again, if I am coming off as anti-Catholic I apologize.

Good Evening and God Bless,

I may sound a bit rude and crude here, but for protestants esspecially “scripture alone” (types) relate everything to the bible and nothing to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Teachings.

Am I to believe in Scripture Alone where the words Scripture alone are never seen adjacent together in the Bible yet where the Eucharist is clearly taught by the early church fathers and Apostle’s teachings, where in the Bible Jesus did not stammer, did not take back, and definitely over and over again said “He who eats My Body and drinks My Blood shall have eternal life and he who does not eat My Body and drink My Blood shall have no life within them”?
Where Jesus even showed us how this was to be done in the last supper.

Do you know something it takes more interjection with a church to reject the Real Presence than to accept the Real Presence.

Are you reading scripture, taking that scripture within your heart, and not giving your own opinion or listening to someone elses other than Christ to give credence to man and not Jesus?

“Jesus said to love one another as I have loved you”. This then must be sybolic and really not true for He did not stammer here either according to your frame of thinking.

 

[c659smith]

Outside of the Gospels the major reference to the Lord’s Supper is by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11.

Here Paul uses words of consecration similar to those found in the Gospel accounts. He then goes on to elaborate about the manner of eating. In his discussion, whenever he refers to what is eaten, Paul refers to it as bread and the cup. He does use “the body and the blood of the Lord” when referring to those who eat the bread and drink the cup unworthily. However, he does not apply these words to what is actually eaten and drunk; he still refers to those as the bread and the cup. What then does Paul mean when he says we shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord? Paul speaks of judging several times in the verses following the comment about being guilty if we eat and drink unworthily. He tells us that we must examine ourselves since we drink judgment to ourselves if we do not judge the body rightly. It is apparent here that he is talking about us judging our own condition when he refers to judging the body rightly, coming as it does right after the direction to examine ourselves. It is followed by a statement again referring to the judging of our own condition. It does not mean failure to recognize the bread as being the Lord’s body. This is also clear from the fact that when Paul describes the effects of eating unworthily he refers to our relationship with one another, not the nature of the elements. Paul is basically telling us that we must be right with one another when we partake of the Supper. If we are not then we denigrate the Lord’s sacrifice which we are remembering. It is similar to crucifying the Lord again as found in Hebrews.

Paul also speaks of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 10.

Even though he refers to the body and blood of Jesus, he also refers to them as bread and the cup.

Finally, while the Jewish dietary laws do not apply anymore, the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem did impose restrictions on what could be eaten.

Would we have been told not to eat blood is this was contrary to Jesus’ direction with respect to the Eucharist?

“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.” (Acts 15:28-29 NASB)

In the quote directly above

1. are you saying Jesus Christ is an Idol?
2. Are you saying Jesus was Strangled?

Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

they are talking here of the laws of the Jews your deception by removing the first sentence of this section of Acts does what I see many protestants do and that is to take from the bible things out of context.

Should I take a sentence out of a paragraph you wrote or stated and use it to quote you? That is not right but shows decption and mis- trust.

 

[justinthemartyr]

well now that sy has not done anything except regurgitate another protestants ideas concerning these scriptures, maybe sy can now talk about the facts I have brought up several times, of which sy has disregarded.

or maybe sy doesn’t know how to do that?

 

[SyCarl]

well now that sy has not done anything except regurgitate another protestants ideas concerning these scriptures, maybe sy can now talk about the facts I have brought up several times, of which sy has disregarded.

or maybe sy doesn’t know how to do that?

I have not regurgitated anyone else’s ideas. That was my own analysis.

 

[SyCarl]

well now that sy has not done anything except regurgitate another protestants ideas concerning these scriptures, maybe sy can now talk about the facts I have brought up several times, of which sy has disregarded.

or maybe sy doesn’t know how to do that?

I have addressed your question about when people took Jesus literally or figuratively. The fact that you do not accept that verses 60-63 are part of the Bread of Life discourse does not detract from my belief that Jesus does in fact answer in these passages.

 

[SyCarl]

“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.” (Acts 15:28-29 NASB)

In the quote directly above

1. are you saying Jesus Christ is an Idol?
2. Are you saying Jesus was Strangled?

Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

they are talking here of the laws of the Jews your deception by removing the first sentence of this section of Acts does what I see many protestants do and that is to take from the bible things out of context.

Should I take a sentence out of a paragraph you wrote or stated and use it to quote you? That is not right but shows decption and mis- trust.

Did or did not the Council of Jerusalem prohibit us from eating blood? Your questions about being strangled or an idol are irrelevant to the matter.

 

[guanophore]

Did or did not the Council of Jerusalem prohibit us from eating blood? Your questions about being strangled or an idol are irrelevant to the matter.

No, the instructions were addressed to the mixed communites of Jews and Gentiles. They promulgated some dietary restrictions to keep the Gentile members of the congregations from scandalizing the Jews.

In any case, they were speaking of the blood of animals used in pagan sacrifice, and culinary practices that were different between Jews and Gentiles. They were not referring to the Cup of Life given by Jesus.

 

[c659smith]

I have not regurgitated anyone else’s ideas. That was my own analysis.

But you must agree you analyzed out of context and meaning of what the Apostles were saying for you did as I stated and did not use the scripture in it’s whole context but rather a sentence or two from the Act you were quoting.

If you truly believe in Christ and what is written you will refrain from doing this.

I do not believe you do this on purpose but study the scripture, ask those that are well educated in the scripture, and then come to conclussions.

Scriptures-teachings-traditions- This is how you come to the facts and truth on the Good News.

As far as you last question I know guanophore answered that question to you in it’s proper context through using the scripture in the context it was written in.

 

[SyCarl]

But you must agree you analyzed out of context and meaning of what the Apostles were saying for you did as I stated and did not use the scripture in it’s whole context but rather a sentence or two from the Act you were quoting.

If you truly believe in Christ and what is written you will refrain from doing this.

I do not believe you do this on purpose but study the scripture, ask those that are well educated in the scripture, and then come to conclussions.

Scriptures-teachings-traditions- This is how you come to the facts and truth on the Good News.

I did not believe I have taken anything out of context. But with respect to context, I have not seen anyone analyze the whole Bread of Life discourse. It seems that people only want to look at verses 51-58. However the whole discourse from verse 26 to verse 69 must be looked at. The whole thing must make sense together, not just part of it.

 

[justinthemartyr]

I have addressed your question about when people took Jesus literally or figuratively. The fact that you do not accept that verses 60-63 are part of the Bread of Life discourse does not detract from my belief that Jesus does in fact answer in these passages.

You obviously have not read my posts.

You must have read between the lines. go back and read the last several posts, especially as they concern the pattern in which jesus responds to those around him who take him literally and figuratively.

he is consistent every time.

(Jesus’ reaction to objections is remakably consistent. Whenever an audience WRONGLY understands Him to be speking literally and raises objections, Jesus’ canstant practice is to EXPLAIN that he was only speaking figuratively(see John 3:3-5, Matthew 1924-26, JOhn 8:21-23, John 8:32-36John8:39-44 and John 16:18-22
On the other hand, when the audience RIGHTLY understands Him to be speaking literally and raises objections, Jesus’ Jesus" constant practice is to repeat what he said(se Matthew 9:2-6, John8:56-59, and john 6:42-51). When the Jews object to Jesus saying the bread He will give is His flesh , does Jeuss explain himself or repeat himself? Jesus emphatically repeats Himself six times in a row, confirming that he intends to be understood literally.)

 

[SyCarl]

No, the instructions were addressed to the mixed communites of Jews and Gentiles. They promulgated some dietary restrictions to keep the Gentile members of the congregations from scandalizing the Jews.

In any case, they were speaking of the blood of animals used in pagan sacrifice, and culinary practices that were different between Jews and Gentiles. They were not referring to the Cup of Life given by Jesus.

Given the response I received earlier, I hesitate to quote Augustine again but he does seem to be of the same view that I am.

Chapter 16.CRule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions.

1. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.-Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 16, Paragraph 24)
   newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

 

[justinthemartyr]

also, as I stated before, jesus is speaking to the jews, specifically, up til vs 59, then he is speaking to his disciples who remained with him and dealt with their fleshly minds as opposed to the way they should be seeing which of the Spirit. 60-63

READ the verses.

I look forward to your discussion on the matter of how Jesus responds to those around him who think he is figuratively/literally speaking.

 

[justinthemartyr]

Given the response I received earlier, I hesitate to quote Augustine again but he does seem to be of the same view that I am.

so you agree that Christ held himself in his own hands?

great, we are all in agreement then! allelujah!

 

[SyCarl]

You obviously have not read my posts.

You must have read between the lines. go back and read the last several posts, especially as they concern the pattern in which jesus responds to those around him who take him literally and figuratively.

he is consistent every time.

(Jesus’ reaction to objections is remakably consistent. Whenever an audience WRONGLY understands Him to be speking literally and raises objections, Jesus’ canstant practice is to EXPLAIN that he was only speaking figuratively(see John 3:3-5, Matthew 1924-26, JOhn 8:21-23, John 8:32-36John8:39-44 and John 16:18-22
On the other hand, when the audience RIGHTLY understands Him to be speaking literally and raises objections, Jesus’ Jesus" constant practice is to repeat what he said(se Matthew 9:2-6, John8:56-59, and john 6:42-51). When the Jews object to Jesus saying the bread He will give is His flesh , does Jeuss explain himself or repeat himself? Jesus emphatically repeats Himself six times in a row, confirming that he intends to be understood literally.)

I cannot agree with this. When Jesus said He would rebuild the temple in 3 days He was taken literally but said nothing else. When He told Nicodemus that you must be born again, Nicodemus did not understand. Jesus’ reply to him did clarify it for him. Similarly with the Samaritan woman when He spoke of living water. He did not explain to her that He meant the Holy Spirit.

 

[SyCarl]

so you agree that Christ held himself in his own hands?

great, we are all in agreement then! allelujah!

Augustine does not say Jesus held Himself in His own hands. He says that in a manner He did so, which is not the same thing.

 

[c659smith]

I did not believe I have taken anything out of context. But with respect to context, I have not seen anyone analyze the whole Bread of Life discourse. It seems that people only want to look at verses 51-58. However the whole discourse from verse 26 to verse 69 must be looked at. The whole thing must make sense together, not just part of it.

But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble? "What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
(John 6:61-63 NASB)

and what were the words that Jesus spoke of that give Spirit and Life?

FOR IN ORDER FOR YOU TO PARTAKE OF THIS BREAD AND BLOOD YOU MUST DO WHAT?
believe
I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
53 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. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread [3] the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus [4] said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.
The Words of Eternal Life
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” 70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him.

And the words is has spoken to us is ?

And the Spirit is where? Listen to Jesus Word.

This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

 

[SyCarl]

But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble? "What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
(John 6:61-63 NASB)

and what were the words that Jesus spoke of that give Spirit and Life?
I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
53 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. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread [3] the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus [4] said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.
The Words of Eternal Life
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” 70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him.

And the words is has spoken to us is ?

And the Spirit is where? Listen to Jesus Word.

This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

The words that Jesus spoke that were spirit and life included:

"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.” They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?” Jesus answered and said to them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. "It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
(John 6:38-47 NASB)

How do they fit in with a literal reading of the rest of the discourse?

Jesus tells us if we believe we will have life. He also says unless you eat His flesh and drink His Blood you have no life in you. Unless believing and the eating and drinking mean the same thing, Jesus is being inconsistent.

 

[c659smith]

I cannot agree with this. When Jesus said He would rebuild the temple in 3 days He was taken literally but said nothing else. When He told Nicodemus that you must be born again, Nicodemus did not understand. Jesus’ reply to him did clarify it for him. Similarly with the Samaritan woman when He spoke of living water. He did not explain to her that He meant the Holy Spirit.

Jesus literally did destroy the temple and rebuilt it in three days.

He destroyed it with His death and He rebuuilt it with His Ressurection.

Why was the curtin torn from top to bottom instead of bottom to top

One of the signs which accompanied Christ’s sacrificial death, took place in the inner sanctum of the house of animal sacrifice: “Behold the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom” (Mtt 27:51).

Later, at our Lord’s crucifixion, the great curtain veiling the Holiest place was torn from top to bottom. The room now visible through the rend in the veil was bare, its irreplacable artifacts lost in antiquity. That made more poignant the rend in the veil.

Short of letting the earthquake demolish the temple completely then and there, God could not have given the Jews a clearer sign. Christ had opened the way into the Holiest Place; the temple, its priesthood, and its blood sacrifices were now defunct. The final sin offering had been made. God did not destroy the temple then. He gave the Jews time to make a voluntary end to sacrifice and offering, and to recognise the death of his beloved Son instead as the final sacrifice for sins.

This is what acts was refering to as blood. The Blood sacrafices in the Temple.