No Real Presence of Jesus Christ in Protestant Churches

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MarisStella said:
"there are now as many doctrines as there are heads”?
Randy, where can I find this quote from Martin Luther?
Click to expand...
Martin Luther

On Doctrinal Divisions

“This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament [Real Presence], another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet.” (De Wette III, 61. quoted in O’Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.)

“Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers.” (Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O’Hare, Ibid, 209.)

:tiphat:
 
ACbishop said:
The Bible says nothing about transubstantiation. It is totally fabricated by the Catholic church to say that they have Jesus in the real presence but nobody else does. It is just more rhetoric that can’t be proven by anything but what comes from Catholicism. Luther exclaimed exactly what scripture says in cosubstantiation that it is bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ. The bread which comes down from heaven is my flesh.
Click to expand...
No, that’s not quite what the RCC says about transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation is the approved and mandated RCC explanation of how the Real Presence is brought about, when any priest in valid orders confects the sacrament, be he RCC, Orthodox, PNCC, Old Catholic, or the occasional Anglican (even in the RCC terminology). It’s how it is done, not who can do it. That relates to validity of orders, a different issue.

GKC
 
ACbishop said:
Exactly. I have never heard it put in such a way and I have heard it said many ways! (most of them inaccurate and untrue of course).
Click to expand...
I hear it that way a lot, the Horny Hank and his Hormones thesis. History is a lot more complex.

GKC
 
believers said:
Sorry… but your religion’s very carnal definition of the body and blood are way off. Jesus said… they are spirit and they are life.

In regards to His blood is DRINK indeed… I believe Jesus explained this too in Chapters 4 and 7 (now, I’m open to reproof if anyone cares to correct me, with the Word of God). I believe Jesus was referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. When a sinner believes on Him… he/she is baptized with the Holy Spirit.

1Cr 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Chapter 4

Jhn 4:10
Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

Jhn 4:11
The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?

Jhn 4:12
Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?

Jhn 4:13
Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:

Jhn 4:14
But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Jhn 4:15
The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

Chapter 7

Jhn 7:37
In the last day, that great [day] of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

Jhn 7:38
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

Jhn 7:39
(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

1Cr 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Click to expand...
Amen.

Jesus definitely promised to give us the Spirit. The Spirit has always been associated with water:
  • At creation
  • In the form of the dove returning to Noah’s Ark at the flood
  • At Jesus’ own baptism
  • In his discussion with Nicodemus when he said, “unless you are born of water (baptism) and the Spirit”
  • In Peter’s preaching on the day of Pentecost
Water and Spirit, yesiree. They go together like peas and carrots.

But…he never mentioned drinking his blood in any of these passages, now did he? :hmmm:
 
Randy_Carson said:
Amen.

Jesus definitely promised to give us the Spirit. The Spirit has always been associated with water:
  • At creation
  • In the form of the dove returning to Noah’s Ark at the flood
  • At Jesus’ own baptism
  • In his discussion with Nicodemus when he said, “unless you are born of water (baptism) and the Spirit”
  • In Peter’s preaching on the day of Pentecost
Water and Spirit, yesiree. They go together like peas and carrots.

But…he never mentioned drinking his blood in any of these passages, now did he? :hmmm:
Click to expand...
We are partakers of His blood (spiritual drink) when we believe on him first (our spiritual meat). He explained this just before (chapter 4) and right after (chapter 7)
 
“Moreover, if there be any [heretics] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origins of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some of one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the way in which the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just the same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles” (Tertullian, The Demurrer Against the Heretics, A.D. 200, [32,1]).
 
believers said:
We are partakers of His blood (spiritual drink) when we believe on him first (our spiritual meat). He explained this just before (chapter 4) and right after (chapter 7)
Click to expand...
Is this what the early church believed? Let’s take a look - keeping a careful eye on the dates of each quotation:

Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (*Letter to the Romans *7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn. (*First Apology *66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (*Against Heresies *4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

Clement of Alexandria

“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (*The Instructor of Children *1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Tertullian

“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (*The Resurrection of the Dead *8 [A.D. 210]).

Hippolytus

“‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper *” (Fragment from *Commentary on Proverbs *[A.D. 217]).

(cont.)*
 
Origen

“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (*Homilies on Numbers *7:2 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (*The Lapsed *15–16 [A.D. 251]).

Council of Nicaea I

“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters *, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

Aphraahat the Persian Sage

“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (*Catechetical Lectures *19:7 [A.D. 350]).

“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).

“Then having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual Hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is surely sanctified and changed.” (ibid., 23:7 [A.D. 350).

“Then, after the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless service, is completed, over that sacrifice of propitiation we entreat God for the common peace of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm”]Churches*, for the welfare of the world; for kings; for soldiers and allies; for the sick; for the afflicted; and, in a word, for all who stand in need of succour we all pray and offer this sacrifice” (ibid., 23:8 A.D. 350).

I have more quotes if you need them, but I’m not getting the sense that the early church - you know, before Rome corrupted pure Christianity - taught that the bread and wine were symbolic.

What was your impression?

Hope this helps? :tiphat:
 
dear believers.The word of God is filled with both implicet and explicet refernces to the early Christians accepting the real presence and Christ teaching this.1 Cor 11:23-29;**11:27.**Or drink… Here erroneous translators corrupted the text, by putting and drink (contrary to the original) instead of or drink. Guilty of the body, etc., not discerning the body, etc… This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, even to the unworthy communicant; who otherwise could not be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, or justly condemned for not discerning the Lord’s body. 11:28. Drink of the chalice… This is not said by way of command, but by way of allowance, viz., where and when it is agreeable to the practice and discipline of the church. Surely you don’t think that Paul is speaking of baptism of the Holy Spirit here? The context (1 cor 11:17-31) is that some believers came into a mass disrupting it by drinking the wine and eating the bread as if they were having a party.

We also have

Luke 24:13-31;Why were their eyes opened right at the same moment in the mass where the bread is concecrated and becomes the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus. In other words with the breaking of the bread the mens eyes were opened and they saw Jesus. Luke uses this inciident to illustrate the truth in the belief.Now this and coupled with the early Church Fathers, those writtings of Church leaders, bishops and priests, who all affirmed this idea. It wasn’t until the 11th century that a heresy did spring up within Chiristian belief although heresy from outsided that did infiltrate some Churches teachings such as the Gnostic Churches (The Gnostic theology comes from the Indian area.)Thus biblically and historically the true presence, body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ in the blessed Eucharist is evident. You position as a Christian teaching isn’t until the 16th century.Pax DominiJohn

P.S. I had the text of the scriptures all pasted but had to much in the way of charactors

​
 
Randy_Carson said:
Cyril of Jerusalem

“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (*Catechetical Lectures *19:7 [A.D. 350]).

“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).
Click to expand...
maybe I went to a odd Baptist church. When the Pastor did communion he emphasised it was the blood and the body. One thought of it in that way. Just as is described here. So I simply cannot see the whole “your not doing it right arguement”

btw this is finally a description that Ive been digging for.
 
Jesus = Living Bread (John 6:51)
Living Bread = Flesh (John 6:51)
Flesh = Meat (John 6:55)
Meat = work of God (John 4:34) Already explained.
Work of God = believe on Jesus (John 6:28-29)
Believe on Jesus = have everlasting life (Jhn 6:40) Everlasting life is the result of eating his flesh.
Living Bread = NOT AS YOUR FATHERS DID EAT MANNA, AND ARE DEAD (John 6:58)

The bible can indeed be used to prove any predetermined theology, can’t it?
Using this same formula, an atheist could use the bible to prove his atheism:

God = Word (John 1:1)
Word = flesh (John 1:14)
Flesh = no avail (John 6:63)
Therefore, God is of no avail.

I echo the words of the Ethiopian eunuch, who said to Philip when asked by him if he understood the scriptures that he was reading, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” Acts 8:31
No, not everyone has the authority to interpret scripture.
I have learned to place my trust in Jesus Christ and His church, which is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (I Timothy 3:15)
 
MarisStella said:
Jesus = Living Bread (John 6:51)
Living Bread = Flesh (John 6:51)
Flesh = Meat (John 6:55)
Meat = work of God (John 4:34) Already explained.
Work of God = believe on Jesus (John 6:28-29)
Believe on Jesus = have everlasting life (Jhn 6:40) Everlasting life is the result of eating his flesh.
Living Bread = NOT AS YOUR FATHERS DID EAT MANNA, AND ARE DEAD (John 6:58)

The bible can indeed be used to prove any predetermined theology, can’t it?
Using this same formula, an atheist could use the bible to prove his atheism:

God = Word (John 1:1)
Word = flesh (John 1:14)
Flesh = no avail (John 6:63)
Therefore, God is of no avail.

I echo the words of the Ethiopian eunuch, who said to Philip when asked by him if he understood the scriptures that he was reading, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” Acts 8:31
No, not everyone has the authority to interpret scripture.
I have learned to place my trust in Jesus Christ and His church, which is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (I Timothy 3:15)
Click to expand...
Amen, I desire all Protestants to come home to the Catholic Church so they took may part take in Holy Communion. To have them received the Body and Blood of the Lord would make all the angels, and saints rejoice.
 
johnstown_johnn said:
What is being said is that even though we receive the bare requirement of once a year we are more susceptible to sin when it is strung out that long inbetween. If the opportunities are there to receive frequently we should take them.

If we are overcome with temptation and act them out the result is Mortal Sin (provided it is a grievous matter). No one, not even one living a cloistered life, is exempt from temtations. Even Our Dear Lord was tempted, remember?

But resistance to temptation is found in frequent reception of the Eucharist. Doing this becomes a journey into spirituality so much so we can actually see clearly the folly of sin.

If this doesn’t clear up any confusion, I’ll keep trying. 🙂
Click to expand...
Thank you . You explained your belief very well.👍 I understand where you are coming from now.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Amen, I desire all Protestants to come home to the Catholic Church so they took may part take in Holy Communion. To have them received the Body and Blood of the Lord would make all the angels, and saints rejoice.
Click to expand...
That would be the same as

Jesus = God
God = Trinity
Mother of God = Mother of Trinity
 
MarisStella said:
Jesus = Living Bread (John 6:51)
Living Bread = Flesh (John 6:51)
Flesh = Meat (John 6:55)
Meat = work of God (John 4:34) Already explained.
Work of God = believe on Jesus (John 6:28-29)
Believe on Jesus = have everlasting life (Jhn 6:40) Everlasting life is the result of eating his flesh.
Living Bread = NOT AS YOUR FATHERS DID EAT MANNA, AND ARE DEAD (John 6:58)

The bible can indeed be used to prove any predetermined theology, can’t it?
Using this same formula, an atheist could use the bible to prove his atheism:

God = Word (John 1:1)
Word = flesh (John 1:14)
Flesh = no avail (John 6:63)
Therefore, God is of no avail.

I echo the words of the Ethiopian eunuch, who said to Philip when asked by him if he understood the scriptures that he was reading, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” Acts 8:31
No, not everyone has the authority to interpret scripture.
I have learned to place my trust in Jesus Christ and His church, which is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (I Timothy 3:15)
Click to expand...
You do realize that you’ve taken it out of context. Why don’t you stay in Chapter 6?
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Amen, I desire all Protestants to come home to the Catholic Church so they took may part take in Holy Communion. To have them received the Body and Blood of the Lord would make all the angels, and saints rejoice.
Click to expand...
Thanks but we receive the body and blood the way Jesus said to. Where do you get the very arrogant notion that your church has exclusive rights on His flesh?
 
40.png
believers:
Thanks but we receive the body and blood the way Jesus said to. Where do you get the very arrogant notion that your church has exclusive rights on His flesh?
Click to expand...
Arrogant! Have you not read what I wrote? Early in the post I wrote, Catholics and Orthodox Christians have the the Real Presence of Jesus Christ.

A monopoly, I think not. Next time you call some arrogant you better read the accusers post carefully. If I had said Catholics have exclusive rights I would not include the Eastern Orthodox Christians. :mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top