New "Real presence" argument?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jobo04
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jobo04

Guest
I’m a Catholic who has come back home, and I have been studying theology and apologetics in the last few months. I was speaking with a friend of mine, who attends a non-denominational church, about transubstantiation, and he presented an argument against the real presence that I’ve never heard before:

He said that the reason Jesus said what He did in John 6:47-58 was to, in essence, weed out those followers who were not truly devoted to Him. And then he made an allusion to other scripture or theory where Jesus had done the same thing or proclaimed the same desire.

So his argument against the real presence INCLUDES a literal translation of the passage in John.

Does anyone have suggestions on scripture that would discredit this “test the faith of these followers by saying something shocking but not true” theory? My friend abides by the belief of sola scriptura. :doh2:

Thanks!
 
God does not test our faith by lying to us. Deceiving, maybe. But lying, no.
 
Trying to use Scripture to deny the Scriptural truths of the Catholic Faith invariably means having to jump through hoops such as what you describe. This is certainly true of certain declared “fundamentalists” in the case of the Real Presence, but is also a familiar tactic of self-styled “progressives” who deprecate the Scriptural bases of the priesthood, marriage, and the sanctity of life.

I am always awestruck and humbled by the sense of relief expressed by converted and returned Catholics whose return to the Church was sped when they realized they could abandon tortuous arguments against the truth of Scripture.
 
First of all… this sounds like a made-up argument that has never been used (to MY knowledge) because it just sounds so… “grasping at straws” comes to mind.

How can this friend of yours have ANY insight as to what Jesus was thinking at that moment? There is NOTHING in the Bible that can support that theory. Jesus never said that was what He was doing, and there are no other recorded instances of Him doing that.

The LACK of Biblical support should be all you need. Also, if your friend still thinks he is correct, how can he explain 1 Cor 11:27?
 
Jesus is God; we take Him at His word. If your friend claims that Jesus didn’t mean what He said, the burden of proof is on him, not you.
 
For a member of another denomination, the acceptance of the “real presence” is an admission that their path to Christ is flawed or at least incomplete. Many believe that the bible should be read and understood literally, but John 6 and other verses that support the structure of the first century church (the sacraments, priesthood, roll of Mary etc.) are exceptions. Those exceptions are rationalized with proof texts ie; “only scripture interprets scripture”…(confusion sheds light on confusion?). What they are missing is a strong biblical foundation.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
God does not test our faith by lying to us. Deceiving, maybe. But lying, no.
Click to expand...
Deceiving is a form of lying. God may allow us to deceive ourselves or let Satan deceive us, but I do not think He deceives us.
 
Why would God lie? And what lie can be alive close to 2000 years?
 
One lie, just one simple deception by God undermines the whole of Scripture. It would leave us in the position of only ever being able to half believe revealed truths. For example, is the gospel’s insistence on the Incarnation designed to weed out those who were allowing hellenism to influence monotheism? Where does it end?
 
jobo04 said:
I’m a Catholic who has come back home, and I have been studying theology and apologetics in the last few months. I was speaking with a friend of mine, who attends a non-denominational church, about transubstantiation, and he presented an argument against the real presence that I’ve never heard before:

He said that the reason Jesus said what He did in John 6:47-58 was to, in essence, weed out those followers who were not truly devoted to Him. And then he made an allusion to other scripture or theory where Jesus had done the same thing or proclaimed the same desire.

So his argument against the real presence INCLUDES a literal translation of the passage in John.

Does anyone have suggestions on scripture that would discredit this “test the faith of these followers by saying something shocking but not true” theory? My friend abides by the belief of sola scriptura. :doh2:

Thanks!
Click to expand...
One thing to look at also in light of this argument, is what Jesus did after those people left. He turned to the 12 and asked if they were leaving also. He never said, 'oh by the way, what I meant was…" or “now that those who are not really devoted to me are gone, we can get down to what I really mean…”
 
jobo04 said:
I’m a Catholic who has come back home, and I have been studying theology and apologetics in the last few months. I was speaking with a friend of mine, who attends a non-denominational church, about transubstantiation, and he presented an argument against the real presence that I’ve never heard before:

He said that the reason Jesus said what He did in John 6:47-58 was to, in essence, weed out those followers who were not truly devoted to Him. And then he made an allusion to other scripture or theory where Jesus had done the same thing or proclaimed the same desire.

So his argument against the real presence INCLUDES a literal translation of the passage in John.

Does anyone have suggestions on scripture that would discredit this “test the faith of these followers by saying something shocking but not true” theory? My friend abides by the belief of sola scriptura. :doh2:

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Well - it’s a novel approach…but as another said it reeks of “grasping at straws”.

Jesus DID test his followers. This is very true. He did so by presenting firm and full TRUTHS which the false followers would not be able to abide or accept. Truths that would prick them and force them to either accept and repent their own sin and accept Christ, or they would have to reject Christ and remain in their sin.
But the key here is that he did it by presenting Truths - not lies.

As to another Scripture passage to undermine your friend’s argument on the Real presence. Two come to mind.
The first is the Last supper…a very solemn and momentous occasion…Where Jesus says “this is my body” and “This is my blood”…Does your friend think that Jesus was testing the Apostles here as well?

The second is in the Letters of St Paul where He speaks of those who receive unworthily. Paul says that if we do not properly discern the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, we eat and drink judgement on ourselves.
Is Paul continuing this practice of deceit?

I apologize for not having chapter and verse for the above don’t have the time right now to look them up - perhaps someone can provide them.

Ask your friend if he agrees that Jesus was like us in all ways except sin? If he says yes…Ask Him if telling a lie, deliberately misleading another is a sin…If he says yes again…then ask Him how Jesus could have been God and still deliberately said something about himself that was not true?

Just some thoughts…not very well organized I’m afraid…🤷

Peace
James
 
Oh my God,I firmly believe that You are one God in three divine Persons,Father,Son and and Holy Spirit.I believe that your divine Son became man,died for our sins,and that he will come to judge the living and the dead.I believe these and all the truths which the holy Catholic Church teaches,because You have revealed them,Who can neither deceive nor be deceived.AMEN
 
I can totally accept that Christ said this to test who were His true followers. But why would that lead any of us to think He was still not being literal? Is there something about Christ revealing His Truth in a profound way to test His followers that would make anyone think He was, therefore, not being literal?

(And then it’s right back to the same old arguments that began after the 16th century…and his “argument” loses it’s "new"ness. The only other option is to believe that Christ was a liar…and then NOTHING in His Word can be trusted…and we may as well chunk out the entirety of Scripture. )
 
jobo04 said:
I’m a Catholic who has come back home, and I have been studying theology and apologetics in the last few months. I was speaking with a friend of mine, who attends a non-denominational church, about transubstantiation, and he presented an argument against the real presence that I’ve never heard before:

He said that the reason Jesus said what He did in John 6:47-58 was to, in essence, weed out those followers who were not truly devoted to Him. And then he made an allusion to other scripture or theory where Jesus had done the same thing or proclaimed the same desire.

So his argument against the real presence INCLUDES a literal translation of the passage in John.

Does anyone have suggestions on scripture that would discredit this “test the faith of these followers by saying something shocking but not true” theory? My friend abides by the belief of sola scriptura. :doh2:

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Yes it’s very simple. It’s called the Last Supper!!

[BIBLEDRB]matthew 26:26-28[/BIBLEDRB]

Was Christ still testing the Apostles even after the claimed “test” they had already passed? And if so then why did he not let Judas stay instead of calling him out before they ate and drank the Body and Blood of Christ? One theory I have is maybe it’s because the Bread really is His Body and the Wine really is His Blood and if Judas was to receive such a sacrament in his state then He would have committed a sacrilege.
 
jobo04 said:
I’m a Catholic who has come back home, and I have been studying theology and apologetics in the last few months. I was speaking with a friend of mine, who attends a non-denominational church, about transubstantiation, and he presented an argument against the real presence that I’ve never heard before:

He said that the reason Jesus said what He did in John 6:47-58 was to, in essence, weed out those followers who were not truly devoted to Him. And then he made an allusion to other scripture or theory where Jesus had done the same thing or proclaimed the same desire.

So his argument against the real presence INCLUDES a literal translation of the passage in John.

Does anyone have suggestions on scripture that would discredit this “test the faith of these followers by saying something shocking but not true” theory? My friend abides by the belief of sola scriptura. :doh2:

Thanks!
Click to expand...
This would imply Jesus lied to those following him to see if they would accept even a “crazy” teaching. God does not lie to us. Jesus was without sin, “he knew know sin” and as such this is another attempt to grasp at straws to deny this teaching not caring at all for what the ramifications are as long as the real presence is refuted.

Maybe you should ask your friend why he bothers to do a worthless symbolic act like communion, I am sure if he is a good protestant he would try to avoid meaningless traditions, like his communion service is.
 
I feel this ought to be said.

[BIBLEDRB]Numbers 23:19[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]Titus 1:2[/BIBLEDRB]
 
Not to mention, it would invalidate all Church-approved Eucharistic miracles, some of which have extremely compelling evidence…
 
From Catholicism for Dummies…

In the Synoptic Gospels each writer uses the same phrase to describe the Last Supper on Holy Thursday. Jesus took the bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to His disciples and said, This is My Body. The verb ‘to be’ is used such that an equality exists between ‘This’ (which refers to the bread) and ‘My Body’. So the bread becomes the body of Christ. Because all three Gospels (MT 26:26, MK 14:22 and LK 22:19) meticulously repeat the exact same phrase, as does St. Paul (1 Cor 11:24) these sacred words must be taken literally

The words of the Last Supper spoken by Christ over the bread and wine are consistent with the New Testament: Jesus explicitly and graphically commanded, “Eat My flesh and drink My blood” more than a few times. The Church reasons that if Jesus had meant this to be symbolic He wouldn’t have allowed so many of His followers to leave with such a serious misunderstanding. For Catholics the Holy Eucharist is the Last Supper, His death on the cross and His Resurrection all rolled into one. That is why we say the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith.

catholiccompany.com/catholicism-dummies-p1001687/
 
Thank you so much everyone for the information and comments! My friend attended a bible school, and is leading our prayer group in a sort of evangelization course. I’m the only Catholic in the group, and I’ve been providing them with insight on the Catholic perspective.

There is A LOT of misunderstanding and lack of knowledge about what the Catholic Church is and what she teaches. I’m trying to remedy that as best I can, and the folks in the group are open to hearing what I have to say - so that’s encouraging.

Again, thank you so much for your (name removed by moderator)ut! 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top