Non-Catholic Christians: Why no belief in real presence of Jesus in Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crumpy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CopticChristian said:
Look at Radicals profile and you will see that Radical started two posts. One is on the Eucharist. It is a dialogue with Radical and Pneuma. It is a polite dialogue. Radical leans on Tertullian and certain ECF. Radical also usues other relatively modern theologians that allow for him to convince himself of his position. I suppose if I wanted to deny something I could get a string of information that satisfied my denial. Read it and understand.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, it does not matter what modern theologian Radical chooses to present,his position is weak.As I have asked him for months,where are the countless writings of the ECF clearly rebuking the RP of the eucharist? Radical once replied they didn’t rebuke the RP because it was not taught? If historically it were the case,then where are scores of writings by the ECF clearly defending a symbolic eucharist? Radical’s rebuttal is very weak historically and has no chance of convincing an educated person who has studied the ECF extensively.
 
CopticChristian said:
Radical’s arguments appear like that as he for instance dwells on the word “is”…this is my body without expecting anyone to recognize that the word is was spoken in aramaic, translated into Greek, then Latin and then English for us to read as “is”.
Click to expand...
Actually, it seems that the aramaic language did not have “IS” …Jesus likely said something equivalent to “This my body”…the analysis of “IS” rests on the assumption that the writers of the gospels were inspired to use the word IS.
 
Radical said:
Actually, it seems that the aramaic language did not have “IS” …Jesus likely said something equivalent to “This my body”…the analysis of “IS” rests on the assumption that the writers of the gospels were inspired to use the word IS.
Click to expand...
Radical,

I do love your mind. No. The Gospel writers wrote in Greek. Under inspiration they used the following as you see.

estin
ἐστιν
is

“Is” is the word that was translated into English. Now the question that has to be asked is this. Are translations inspired? If so then which ones? If not then you are stuck with what “is” it that Jesus meant when he said whatever he said in Aramaic that was written in Greek as we look back 2000 years to try to figure out what everyone else thinks he meant? Now I am going to just go with what the OHCAC says. You can set up a dialogue and take a vote and see how it comes out.
 
Radical said:
Actually, it seems that the aramaic language did not have “IS” …Jesus likely said something equivalent to “This my body”…the analysis of “IS” rests on the assumption that the writers of the gospels were inspired to use the word IS.
Click to expand...
It would be nice if all those who were not language experts cited their sources. In fact, even if you are a language expert, please cite your sources.
 
PumpkinSeed said:
Protestants see communion as symbolic rather than literal. I guess they don’t believe in cannibalism.
Click to expand...
That’s outrageous. I will say without hesitation that the Lord’s Supper is His body and blood, by His own words. I don’t believe Christ meant, by his words, cannibalism.

Jon
 
PumpkinSeed said:
Protestants see communion as symbolic rather than literal. I guess they don’t believe in cannibalism.
Click to expand...
Do you see marriage as “symbolic”? Or do the married man and woman become “one flesh”? There is a distinction between symbolism and metaphor. The use of the latter device does not empty the principle of its meaning.

[BIBLEDRB]Gen. 2:24[/BIBLEDRB]
 
PumpkinSeed said:
Protestants see communion as symbolic rather than literal. I guess they don’t believe in cannibalism.
Click to expand...
Christians in the early church were also accused of cannibalism by those who misunderstood the Eucharist. This only makes sense if they saw Holy Communion as literal not symbolic.

Christ was the High Priest and the Lamb of God. At the last supper he offered his body and blood as High Priest, and was also the Sacrificial Victim, the Lamb of God, which was consummed.
 
JonNC said:
Just to clarify, I know you don’t mean to imply that Christ’s words at the Last Supper were a metaphor.

Jon
Click to expand...
JonNC - yes, a metaphor, but not a mere metaphor.

Christ uses a metaphor to describe His real presence (just as He used metaphors to describe Himself as the “door” to heaven and the true vine). We’re not speaking of Hemingway or Shakespeare - this is Christ, Our Savior; the Son of God. Shakespeare used metaphor to convey imagery for the reader - with the understanding that although A is compared to B, A is not literally B. God, on the other hand, uses metaphor to convey meaning so that when God says A is B, our posture (as believers) is to respond in a way that treats A and B in the same manner.

Incidentally, many evangelicals understand this to be true with regard to scripture - that is, that the words and pages in a leather-bound book are indeed Holy. Sola scriptura is based entirely on this idea that the Bible, which would be regarded by a non-believer as merely a book, is in fact God’s Word.

Do Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins believe that our canon is Holy? Of course not - they are atheists who lack faith! But ask any evangelical if his King James Bible is the Word of God and he will respond in the affirmative. He believes (as Catholics do) that the words are Holy - not because it dropped from the sky and fell into his lap; but because he has faith that God is present in the Word. There is a sort of transubstantiation that occurs whereby the ink, the paper, the words on the page have become Holy in the believer’s hands (and in his heart and mind).

Why does the evangelical believe that the words in this book are Holy? Faith.

Why do Catholics believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Faith!

Suggested reading: History of Dogma, by Adolf Harnack
 
=stewstew03;9137324]JonNC - yes, a metaphor, but not a mere metaphor.
Click to expand...
Christ uses a metaphor to describe His real presence (just as He used metaphors to describe Himself as the “door” to heaven and the true vine). We’re not speaking of Hemingway or Shakespeare - this is Christ, Our Savior; the Son of God. Shakespeare used metaphor to convey imagery for the reader - with the understanding that although A is compared to B, A is not literally B. God, on the other hand, uses metaphor to convey meaning so that when God says A is B, our posture (as believers) is to respond in a way that treats A and B in the same manner.
First, I just wanted to make sure that those around us who believe in a symbolic presence didn’t misconstrue what you meant by your analogy. The fact is that there is nothing in the Last Supper accounts that even implies a metaphor. He speaks literally, not metaphorically, when He says, “This is my body”.
Click to expand...
Incidentally, many evangelicals understand this to be true with regard to scripture - that is, that the words and pages in a leather-bound book are indeed Holy.
Click to expand...
Sola scriptura is based entirely on this idea that the Bible, which would be regarded by a non-believer as merely a book, is in fact God’s Word.

Do Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins believe that our canon is Holy? Of course not - they are atheists who lack faith! But ask any evangelical if his King James Bible is the Word of God and he will respond in the affirmative. He believes (as Catholics do) that the words are Holy - not because it dropped from the sky and fell into his lap; but because he has faith that God is present in the Word. There is a sort of transubstantiation that occurs whereby the ink, the paper, the words on the page have become Holy in the believer’s hands (and in his heart and mind).

Why does the evangelical believe that the words in this book are Holy? Faith.

Why do Catholics believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Faith!

And Lutherans agree with both.

Jon
Click to expand...
 
Because it only represents Jesus and his table at the last supper. Catholics will disagree with me… But that’s what I believe.
 
JonNC said:
First, I just wanted to make sure that those around us who believe in a symbolic presence didn’t misconstrue what you meant by your analogy. The fact is that there is nothing in the Last Supper accounts that even implies a metaphor. He speaks literally, not metaphorically, when He says, “This is my body”.
Click to expand...
Yes - Jesus means what He says. When He says “this is my body” He means it. But, I hope you understood my point about metaphors - He didn’t mean that the loaf of bread was an appendage (which is more of a response to PumpkinSeed’s post). He meant - “this is my body” - and we must treat it as such during Eucharistic adoration.
And Lutherans agree with both.
Click to expand...
Fantastic.
 
mitex said:
Because it only represents Jesus and his table at the last supper. Catholics will disagree with me… But that’s what I believe.
Click to expand...
If you are a believer, how can something un-Holy represent Our Savior?
 
stewstew03 said:
Yes - Jesus means what He says. When He says “this is my body” He means it. But, I hope you understood my point about metaphors - He didn’t mean that the loaf of bread was an appendage (which is more of a response to PumpkinSeed’s post). He meant - “this is my body” - and we must treat it as such during Eucharistic adoration.

Fantastic.
Click to expand...
Agreed!

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Lutherans will, too.

Jon
Click to expand...
Personally I believe I’m saved by baptism and accepting Jesus as my personal savior. Communion is just a symbolic tradition in my Church. There are other opinions by more conservative Catholic leaning Episcopalians.

But I’ve got a progressive Evangelical outlook on my faith, which is part of the low church tradition.
 
mitex said:
Personally I believe I’m saved by baptism and accepting Jesus as my personal savior. Communion is just a symbolic tradition in my Church. There are other opinions by more conservative Catholic leaning Episcopalians.

But I’ve got a progressive Evangelical outlook on my faith.
Click to expand...
Also known as “high church” traditions.
 
mitex said:
Personally I believe I’m saved by baptism and accepting Jesus as my personal savior. Communion is just a symbolic tradition in my Church. There are other opinions by more conservative Catholic leaning Episcopalians.

But I’ve got a progressive Evangelical outlook on my faith, which is part of the low church tradition.
Click to expand...
I prefer the corporate connection. It is kind of like being a Jew or part of Israel.:grouphug:

The Jew prayed to the God of Nations. Christians pray to God the father. The father has many children. In my family my father was my father but I had sisters to share him with and rather than thinking he was my personal father I thought of him as Our Father who art in heaven…sorry for that could not help it.
 
stewstew03 said:
It would be nice if all those who were not language experts cited their sources. In fact, even if you are a language expert, please cite your sources. Ben Witherington III, New Testament History p 144
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top