No Real Presence of Jesus Christ in Protestant Churches

[Mannyfit75]

Jesus was saying that the words are spirit. He was referring to spiritual flesh and a spiritual drink. Not the eucharist and not wine.

Not in John 6:63. He ended his bread discourse after 70 of his disciple left in the previous verse. I don’t think spiritual itself is a term use for symbolic meaning. If it were, the Holy Spirit would be called Holy Symbollic.

 

[estesbob]

Jesus was saying that the words are spirit. He was referring to spiritual flesh and a spiritual drink. Not the eucharist and not wine.

In you opinion. Why should we accept your private interpertation of Scipture?

 

[believers]

In you opinion. Why should we accept your private interpertation of Scipture?

You don’t have to. What makes you think that you must accept anything I say? You have free will to believe anything you want. And it will be what we truly believe that we will be judge on. If you truly believe that you are freed from sin by water baptism, then that’s what you’ll be judged on. That isn’t in my heart. I believe that only the blood of Jesus freed me from sin and my faith in him will be counted as righteousness.

 

[Mannyfit75]

No Manny, I didn’t write that. I was reproofing it.

Then explain where you come up with the idea that Jesus spoke symbollically? Because from John 6:51-63, Jesus commanded us to eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood. Furthermore, St. Paul said in 1 Cor 11:27 " Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. "

How can one symbollically received the Body and Blood of the Lord be guilty? Symbollism makes no logic in this regard. Why would Paul even called this bread and wine body and blood of the Lord? Why didn’t he say, bread and wine in this verse. In the previous verse he did say “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes”

We see Paul saying, Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. The literal meaning of the Eucharist in both John 6:51-63 and 1 Cor 11… makes very clear that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of the Lord. Not symbollic.

 

[estesbob]

You don’t have to. What makes you think that you must accept anything I say? You have free will to believe anything you want. And it will be what we truly believe that we will be judge on. If you truly believe that you are freed from sin by water baptism, then that’s what you’ll be judged on. That isn’t in my heart. I believe that only the blood of Jesus freed me from sin and my faith in him will be counted as righteousness.

So everyone is saved regardless of their religion or actions as long as in their hearts they truly believe they are saved? Is that your interperation of Scripture?

 

[rbarcia]

Then explain where you come up with the idea that Jesus spoke symbollically? Because from John 6:51-63, Jesus commanded us to eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood. Furthermore, St. Paul said in 1 Cor 11:27 " Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. "

How can one symbollically received the Body and Blood of the Lord be guilty? Symbollism makes no logic in this regard. Why would Paul even called this bread and wine body and blood of the Lord? Why didn’t he say, bread and wine in this verse. In the previous verse he did say “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes”

Yes it does. Not having Real Presence does not change the fact that the sacrifice on the cross is real, and that by participating in communion, you state you believe in the very real (an only) sacrifice of the cross. Then if you are proclaiming you believe in the Death and Resurrection of Christ, (and thus Him paying for our sins). Then by living in sin, we fool ourselves. It is very simple.

It is like wearing a wedding ring while committing adultery. Since we are the bride of Christ, communion is like that wedding ring.

We see Paul saying, Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. The literal meaning of the Eucharist in both John 6:51-63 and 1 Cor 11… makes very clear that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of the Lord. Not symbollic.

So Paul’s statement says absolutely nothing about real presence. You are pulling that meaning out of scripture.

 

[rbarcia]

So everyone is saved regardless of their religion or actions as long as in their hearts they truly believe they are saved? Is that your interperation of Scripture?

You are twisting her words. All those who believe (which implies full submission and repentance to God) in Jesus Christ (not anyone else, or some implicit Christ), then you are saved.

Good works are evidence of your salvation (not the cause)

**

Eph 2:8-10

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

James 2

17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without yourworks, and I will show you my faith by my works.

1 John 5

1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.

Mark 4

20 But these are the ones sown on good ground, those who hear the word, accept it, and bear fruit: some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred.”

**

No work can save you, but it is the fruit of salvation. Genuine faith produce good works.

 

[believers]

Then explain where you come up with the idea that Jesus spoke symbollically. Because from John 6:51-63, Jesus commanded us to eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood. Furthermore, St. Paul said in 1 Cor 11:27 " Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. "

Jesus also said that He was the door.
Jhn 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

If you let Jesus define the terms He used in regards to “living bread”, “flesh”, “meat”, “work of God” then you’ll get the full meaning of what He said. He didn’t say anything different than what He’s been saying all along.

Jhn 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

How can one symbollically received the Body and Blood of the Lord be guilty? Symbollism makes no logic in this regard. Why would Paul even called this bread and wine body and blood of the Lord? Why didn’t he say, bread and wine in this verse. In the previous verse he did say “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes”

I believe that is in reference to Judas. We know Jesus and the Holy Spirit. We’ve tasted the Body and Blood and will be guilty of it if we stray.

2Pe 2:20
For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

2Pe 2:21
For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

We see Paul saying, Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. The literal meaning of the Eucharist in both John 6:51-63 and 1 Cor 11… makes very clear that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of the Lord. Not symbollic.

It can’t be something that we literally eat. If you read my past posts I explained what I believe the flesh and blood is referring to. We eat the flesh by believing on Jesus, we partake in the blood by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. You’ll have to go back to see the rest of that.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Yes it does. Not having Real Presence does not change the fact that the sacrifice on the cross is real, and that by participating in communion, you state you believe in the very real (an only) sacrifice of the cross. Then if you are proclaiming you believe in the Death and Resurrection of Christ, (and thus Him paying for our sins). Then by living in sin, we fool ourselves. It is very simple.

I do believe in the Death and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. He did paid for our sins once and for all. However, we can lose the grace from God when we sin and most repent. How many times Paul told his followers to presevere to the end.

The sacrifice of the Mass is to make the presence the sacrifice of the Cross in an unbloody manner. Hence, Jesus commanded us, “Do this in remembrance of me.”

It is like wearing a wedding ring while committing adultery. Since we are the bride of Christ, communion is like that wedding ring.

So Paul’s statement says absolutely nothing about real presence. You are pulling that meaning out of scripture.

No I am not. You are. If you say nothing is real then why did Paul called the Bread and Wine. Body and Blood of the Lord?

I beg to differ, my friend. You have taken the Scripture completely out of context.

Jesus doesn’t seem to agree with you either.

John 6:53-56.

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: he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55: For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him

Whose word should I obey? Yours or Jesus?

 

[Efrain]

You are forgiven. It is so easy to get derailed. All it takes is one comment. It is sooooo hard to ignore it and move past it

What about the Socrates theory of following the arguement where ever it leads?

Sorry just thought I’d give you a hard time officer.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Jesus also said that He was the door.
Jhn 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

If you let Jesus define the terms He used in regards to “living bread”, “flesh”, “meat”, “work of God” then you’ll get the full meaning of what He said. He didn’t say anything different than what He’s been saying all along.

I heard that interpretation before. In those context, Jesus explain himself clearly. The difference between John 6:51-63 is that you have 70 disciples leaving Jesus never to return to Him again.

Jhn 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Jesus said, My flesh is food indeed and my blood is real drink indeed. Do you believe him when he said that? I do. I believe that and everything he has taught his apostles who in turn handed down to their sucessors the bishops.

I believe that is in reference to Judas. We know Jesus and the Holy Spirit. We’ve tasted the Body and Blood and will be guilty of it if we stray.

If we eat the Body and Blood of th Lord unworthily, we profane the Lord. We also profane the Lord when we sin. We should always so we will not be strayed away.

2Pe 2:20
For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

Your point to this quote is?

2Pe 2:21
For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

Same question.

It can’t be something that we literally eat. If you read my past posts I explained what I believe the flesh and blood is referring to. We eat the flesh by believing on Jesus, we partake in the blood by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. You’ll have to go back to see the rest of that.

I have read that and I find your exegesis of the passage contrary what is read in the original context.

 

[djrakowski]

Manny, what I find interesting is that Jesus spends the entire second half of John 6 commanding his disciples to eat his flesh and drink his blood. The interpretation offered by those who don’t believe in the Real Presence, that his flesh literally profits nothing, makes it almost like he’s saying, “All that stuff I said back there about eating my flesh and drinking my blood? You know, the part where I said it was real food and real drink, and that you have no life in you if you don’t do as I commanded? I didn’t mean any of that because the flesh profits nothing. Pulled your leg!”

Was Jesus trying to be deliberately confusing? Was he really trying to yank their chains? Or is the Catholic (and Orthodox, Anglican, and to some degree Lutheran and perhaps others) interpretation the correct one?

 

[Efrain]

6:61. Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it?

This was a hard saying at the very begining. Some disciples even turned away from Jesus at this point. I say lets follow the teachings of he Apostles who did stay with Him at this point. Those who taught that the bread and wine is true flesh and blood of Jesus at thier consecration by the authority given to them by the Lord.

Is this so hard?

 

[believers]

6:61. Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it?

This was a hard saying at the very begining. Some disciples even turned away from Jesus at this point. I say lets follow the teachings of he Apostles who did stay with Him at this point. Those who taught that the bread and wine is true flesh and blood of Jesus at thier consecration by the authority given to them by the Lord.

Is this so hard?

Why do you use that verse like it’s been reserved for you? I can easily say the same thing.

 

[Efrain]

Jesus’s own words were that you have to eat my flesh and drink my blood to be saved(paraphrasing) right? So since catholics take this scripture literally then that would mean that the only way to get to heaven is if you receive the Eucharist worthily(of course)

6:52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.

If we eat (worthily) we shall live forever. Jesus didn’t state that this was the only way to be saved, therefore it is not in our doctrine that only those are saved. Although like Manny stated previously it is what binds us and keeps us together. This feast we hold for the love of Jesus also binds us together with love for one another.

 

[Efrain]

Why do you use that verse like it’s been reserved for you? I can easily say the same thing.

This verse wasn’t reserved for me or for my use. It is in Scripture for all to come to believe.

I can see this saying is hard for you too.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny, what I find interesting is that Jesus spends the entire second half of John 6 commanding his disciples to eat his flesh and drink his blood. The interpretation offered by those who don’t believe in the Real Presence, that his flesh literally profits nothing, makes it almost like he’s saying, “All that stuff I said back there about eating my flesh and drinking my blood? You know, the part where I said it was real food and real drink, and that you have no life in you if you don’t do as I commanded? I didn’t mean any of that because the flesh profits nothing. Pulled your leg!”

Was Jesus trying to be deliberately confusing? Was he really trying to yank their chains? Or is the Catholic (and Orthodox, Anglican, and to some degree Lutheran and perhaps others) interpretation the correct one?

Jesus was telling the Truth. For one when Jesus heal the sick on the Sabbath day it upset the Pharisees and Sadducees. When he told them that he had the power to forgive sin, it offended them because it is difficult. When Jesus said, “before Abraham, I AM.” They tried to stone Him. When Jesus said, Whoever eats my flesh and drink my blood will have eternal life, 70 disciples left never to return. Jesus said many things that are difficult to believe.

Who would said, that the Messiah would be God, and died on the cross by his own creations, only to rise again from the dead. Prior to that, Jews at the time view the Messiah as someone who would liberate them from the Rome Oppressors. Little did they know that Jesus Came to Save us all from our sins, and our main enemy far worst than Roman Emperor, Satan, the Evil One himself.

Either Jesus was a deceiver or one of the greatest God-Man that ever walked on the face of the earth. I believe he is the Messiah, Son of the Living God. He show it in his teachings and his actions. Jesus was very clear that we have to eat his flesh and drink his blood. It is not symbolic. The Eucharist is Jesus.

Anglicans, Lutherans, and Orthodox belief is more closely to Catholicism concept but it differs.

Lutherans believe in Constantiation similiar to the Orthodox Christian belief regarding the Eucharist. These faiths don’t deny Real Presence.

It is the mainstream Evangelical Protestants who have issues with the belief.

The idea that the Eucharist is symbolic is completely alien to the Apostles, and the Patristic Fathers. Symbolic concept of the Eucharist came about the time of the Reformation…

 

[djrakowski]

Jesus was telling the Truth. For one when Jesus heal the sick on the Sabbath day it upset the Pharisees and Sadducees. When he told them that he had the power to forgive sin, it offended them because it is difficult. When Jesus said, “before Abraham, I AM.” They tried to stone Him. When Jesus said, Whoever eats my flesh and drink my blood will have eternal life, 70 disciples left never to return. Jesus said many things that are difficult to believe.

Who would said, that the Messiah would be God, and died on the cross by his own creations, only to rise again from the dead. Prior to that, Jews at the time view the Messiah as someone who would liberate them from the Rome Oppressors. Little did they know that Jesus Came to Save us all from our sins, and our main enemy far worst than Roman Emperor, Satan, the Evil One himself.

Either Jesus was a deceiver or one of the greatest God-Man that ever walked on the face of the earth. I believe he is the Messiah, Son of the Living God. He show it in his teachings and his actions. Jesus was very clear that we have to eat his flesh and drink his blood. It is not symbolic. The Eucharist is Jesus.

Anglicans, Lutherans, and Orthodox belief is more closely to Catholicism concept but it differs.

Lutherans believe in Constantiation similiar to the Orthodox Christian belief regarding the Eucharist. These faiths don’t deny Real Presence.

It is the mainstream Evangelical Protestants who have issues with the belief.

The idea that the Eucharist is symbolic is completely alien to the Apostles, and the Patristic Fathers. Symbolic concept of the Eucharist came about the time of the Reformation…

Excellent post, Manny, particularly the underlined parts.

When I mentioned the Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican views on the Real Presence, I was trying to illustrate that there are far more views on this matter than ‘believers’ and other evangelical Christians are willing to acknowledge. Yet, all of these other churches believe that they’ve been led to their interpretations by the Holy Spirit (and their interpretations of John 6 are awfully close to ours, allowing for at least some form of Real Presence in the eucharist). This is really a rhetorical question, but, whom shall I believe? All those who claim to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit but can hardly agree on anything, or the one true Church with a lineage straight back to the apostles?

I find it interesting that the churches that sprung from the Reformation have a belief in the Real Presence that is quite similar to ours, and the churches that are further away from the Reformation are most different in this regard. I wonder why that is…

 

[Mannyfit75]

Excellent post, Manny, particularly the underlined parts.

When I mentioned the Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican views on the Real Presence, I was trying to illustrate that there are far more views on this matter than ‘believers’ and other evangelical Christians are willing to acknowledge. Yet, all of these other churches believe that they’ve been led to their interpretations by the Holy Spirit (and their interpretations of John 6 are awfully close to ours, allowing for at least some form of Real Presence in the eucharist). This is really a rhetorical question, but, whom shall I believe? All those who claim to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit but can hardly agree on anything, or the one true Church with a lineage straight back to the apostles?

I find it interesting that the churches that sprung from the Reformation have a belief in the Real Presence that is quite similar to ours, and the churches that are further away from the Reformation are most different in this regard. I wonder why that is…

The only problems those Church have someone is lack of Pope, who could help disputes between bishops or doctrines.

Even now Anglican Churches are having a major problem with gay bishops ordinations. The issue is enough to bring schism within the Anglican community. There is no one there to say, “Hey, we cannot ordain active homosexual priests.”

But others will say, “I disagree. You are interpretation is wrong. I look at the problem that this issue of gay ordination as the lack of central authority to settle the issue.”

The only Church that maintain some authority is the Catholic Church, and I thank God for granting us a Church. When the Church says that the Blessed Sacrament is Jesus, she is correct. She is guided by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit cannot change his mind.

God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. So there no contradiction especially in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

 

[hosemonkey]

After all this debate, things come down to a few simple points. Protestants are blown to and fro by the winds of doctrine and above all, personal interpretation and personal opinion. They will never agree because they are led astray by the Evil One to their destruction. They are called protestants because they have always rebelled(protested) against the authority of the Church that Christ Himself instituted. One can only commend them to the mercy of God and hope that their eyes will be opened. Until then, they wander aimlessly, hoping that the interpretation that they have arrived at will be correct. Pray for their ignorance.