G
guanophore
Guest
I don’t know what thread you were on, but there is another thread already running on “the Real Presence” and Radical has already answered this question.
- Status
A
AntalKalnoky
Guest
Please don’t personally attack the OP or Person Posting. Perhaps you didn’t word your question correctly.
T
The_GreyPilgrim
Guest
With all due respect, he really didn’t answer it. He just gave some sarcastic dodge.
Radical’s response.
T
The_GreyPilgrim
Guest
It’s OK, I didn’t take it as an attack. And I worded the question just fine. Sometimes the simplicity of a question throws people off, like there must be something behind it.
H
Heuchler
Guest
Radical’s answer/sarcastic dodge is actually a very bad answer. By his standards, Christ is human then for their is no evidence except for Christ’s words and miracles that He is also God. He only looks like a humans, talks like a human, eats like a human, etc. There is the same amount of evidence for the Eucharist as Christ said it was Hid body and there are Eucharistic miracles. So, Radical’s answer is primarily based on the faulty logic that something has to be what it seems.
L
lyrikal
Guest
If you go back and read my reply to Radical’s sarcasm, you will find that what you have stated is exactly my argument to Radical. He doesn’t think that they are the same. He thinks that those are two VERY different things. I will respond to his reply of my reply sooner or later. There is usually inconsistencies to Radical’s views. For example: He says that the idea of Transubstantiation comes from the influence of Greek Philosophy. I countered with: “The same people who say that will go further and say that Christianity as a whole is influenced by Greek Philosophy.” His reply in a nutshell is basically: “They’re right about the Eucharist being from Greek Philosophy but they are wrong about the things that I believe coming from Greek Philosophy.”
T
The_GreyPilgrim
Guest
I asked him to prove his assertion that Greek philosophy, or Greek philosophical terms, are inherently evil, and he avoided it completely.If you go back and read my reply to Radical’s sarcasm, you will find that what you have stated is exactly my argument to Radical. He doesn’t think that they are the same. He thinks that those are two VERY different things. I will respond to his reply of my reply sooner or later. There is usually inconsistencies to Radical’s views. For example: He says that the idea of Transubstantiation comes from the influence of Greek Philosophy. I countered with: “The same people who say that will go further and say that Christianity as a whole is influenced by Greek Philosophy.” His reply in a nutshell is basically: “They’re right about the Eucharist being from Greek Philosophy but they are wrong about the things that I believe coming from Greek Philosophy.”
I could be wrong but it seems like he has adopted some form of the “phase theory” of Christianity.
But that’s beside the point of the thread.
H
Heuchler
Guest
Sorry didn’t read anyone else replies on thereIf you go back and read my reply to Radical’s sarcasm, you will find that what you have stated is exactly my argument to Radical. He doesn’t think that they are the same. He thinks that those are two VERY different things. I will respond to his reply of my reply sooner or later. There is usually inconsistencies to Radical’s views. For example: He says that the idea of Transubstantiation comes from the influence of Greek Philosophy. I countered with: “The same people who say that will go further and say that Christianity as a whole is influenced by Greek Philosophy.” His reply in a nutshell is basically: “They’re right about the Eucharist being from Greek Philosophy but they are wrong about the things that I believe coming from Greek Philosophy.”
. With anyone they will kick and squirm and fight to keep on believing what they believe. We can only pray that this man sees reason and comes to find the truth
C
CompSciGuy
Guest
He definitely answered the question.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
A real person, with real flesh. I don’t think “literal” works in this context.
T
TimothyH
Guest
Just as the flesh of the lambs sacrificed at sundown on the passover was roasted and eaten, Jesus’s flesh was meant to be eaten.
Four cups of wine were traditionally consumed at the passover meal. Jesus did not drink the fourth cup until he hung on the cross, at the moment before he died. This was Jesus’ way of extending the passover meal to the cross and to his own death. It was also one of the ways in which his followers would have seen his death as a sacrifice - a passover sacrifice - instead of just another Roman execution. And just as the passover sacrifice was meant to be eaten, Jesus’s flesh - the flesh of the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world - was meant to be eaten.
All through history, the Jewish sacrifices were eaten by the priests. Now we are a holy nation, a royal preisthood, who are also to eat the sacrifice.
Preachin to the chior, I guess.
-Tim-
Four cups of wine were traditionally consumed at the passover meal. Jesus did not drink the fourth cup until he hung on the cross, at the moment before he died. This was Jesus’ way of extending the passover meal to the cross and to his own death. It was also one of the ways in which his followers would have seen his death as a sacrifice - a passover sacrifice - instead of just another Roman execution. And just as the passover sacrifice was meant to be eaten, Jesus’s flesh - the flesh of the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world - was meant to be eaten.
All through history, the Jewish sacrifices were eaten by the priests. Now we are a holy nation, a royal preisthood, who are also to eat the sacrifice.
Preachin to the chior, I guess.
-Tim-
R
Radical
Guest
Guanophore was right, I had already answered your question…I can only imagine that you view my answer as a dodge b/c I only did 90% of the work. So here is the previous answer:
I am sorry that you find this confusing…here’s how you can tell the difference:
If it looks like a human body, has weight like a human body, has features of a human body (you know, like arms, legs, head, torso etc.), can be touched etc, is covered in skin with some hair etc. …then it is real flesh and blood.
If it looks like bread, has the weight of a loaf of bread, is made of baked flour and other ingredients (you know like eggs, milk, salt), covered with a crust etc. …then it is bread and could only be symbolic of human flesh.
I realize that I could have supplied a much more detailed list of features to allow you to distinguish between flesh and bread, but this isn’t rocket science. The above should be sufficient to enable you to sort through your confusion. Good luck…I’m sure you’ll figure it out eventually.
here is the other 10% of the work:
If you put yourself in the sandals of the beloved disciple that day and looked up at Jesus hanging on the cross you would have seen something that “looks like a human body, has features of a human body (you know, like arms, legs, head, torso etc.), can be touched etc, is covered in skin with some hair etc”…and so the answer would be “real flesh and blood”. I don’t know about you, but given the choice of “literal” or “symbolic” I would say real flesh and blood" = literal flesh. Now, was that so hard?
BTW I have never encountered a person who thought symbolic flesh was hung on the cross that day…I so I find your question odd at best. I do note that certain Gnostics may have argued that a phantom body hung on the cross that day… but that wouldn’t be a symbolic body, it would be a phantom body. They would have urged an eye witness to disregard what their senses told them and understand that it wasn’t an actual body that was hanging on the cross…it was only that there appeared to be body on the cross. The only modern thing close to that position that I can recall is: someone might urge me to disregard what my senses tell me and understand that it isn’t actual bread that is sitting on the altar…it is only that there appears to be bread on the altar.
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: Mark for remarks
R
Radical
Guest
so, I take it that you think that a school teacher is being inconsistent if she marks some answers right and some answers wrong when she grades a student’s test paper?
BTW it should be “Some of the same people who say that will go further and say that Christianity as a whole is influenced by Greek Philosophy”
S
Sufjon
Guest
Hi Radical: I was confused when I read the OP because from it I got the notion that there was some strain of Christian thought wherein Jesus didn’t have a physical body. After reading your response though, I get the impression that the discussion is not about whether Jesus had a physical body, but whether or not the bread and wine at the last supper and subsequent celebrations of the Eucharist are in fact the actual body and blood of Christ.
While I can’t claim to be a practicing Christian of any sort, I did spend 20 years in the Catholic Church. I tried it for a number of reasons. It was this sort of subject that made me most curious, because coming from an SD (Hindu) background, and subsequently having returned to my faith, my sense was that this sort of discussion reveals a rather limited understanding of the nature of God and His relation to the universe (or universes if you will). To say that the bread and wine are His Body and Blood, or to say that they are not His Body and Blood both miss the larger meaning or reality of the whole episode. I see the points made by both sides of this debate, but I think they’re both the product of a limited view. Of course, any human view is limited - my own included, however, we do have the ability to sometimes broaden our perspective and gain a broader understanding of things. Perhaps the most important aspect of the debate is that at least the participants are equally interested in God, and this is good to see.
Thanks for the clarification, because I was really intrigued there for a while.
Your friend,
Sufjon
N
Nicea325
Guest
As usual. I have asked Radical and David Ruiz a million times to present the protests by other ECF’s against Augustine,if the Eucharist was NOT to be taken as literal?
As of today not ONE rebuttal by any other ECF attacking Augustine for believing a literal Eucharist?
R
Radical
Guest
understandable…as indicated I thought the question odd (I suspect that GreyPilgrim was attempting to lay a cunning trap for us Protestants to fall into…see post #12 from Guanophore for the gist of the anticipated trap)
well stick around at least for the springing of the dreaded trap…take care
S
Sufjon
Guest
u
Your friend,
Sufjon
As cunning as a cunning fox who has a special reason to be cunning?
I will, but I’m sure you’ll do fine.
Your friend,
Sufjon
H
Heuchler
Guest
As I said earlier your logic is faulty. By your logic Christ looked like a human, spoke like a human, walked like a human, ate like a human, then He is human and could not be God as he doesn’t look like God. So, in the same way Christ looks like a human but is God, the Eucharist looks like bread but is Christ. The way we know that Christ is God and the Eucharist is Christ are in the same manner. Christ said He was God and also that this is my body. There were also miracles which surrounded Christ and miracles that surround the Eucharist. So you can use any method in which you deny the Eucharist to deny the divinity of Christ.
T
The_GreyPilgrim
Guest
So I will assume, since Radical can’t help but give a rant instead of a simple one word answer, that he is implying that it was Jesus’ literal flesh that He offered on the cross for the life of the world.
So it was His literal flesh.
Now here’s my follow-up:
** Did Jesus say that the bread He would give us to eat, which, if we ate we would live for ever, was the flesh that He would give for the life of the world? Yes or no?**
So it was His literal flesh.
Now here’s my follow-up:
** Did Jesus say that the bread He would give us to eat, which, if we ate we would live for ever, was the flesh that He would give for the life of the world? Yes or no?**
- Status