Protestants: Do you believe that Christ is truly present in the communion elements of bread and wine?

[benedictus2]

Why do you forget to quote verse 29 which is part of this?

29 I tell you I will not drink again of this **fruit of the vine **until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Now according to you the wine literally becomes Jesus blood after the consecration. Yet here after the consecration we see Jesus still calling the liquid in the cup “fruit of the vine” which is not grape juice but a typical way of referring to wine. So instead of Jesus saying “I will not drink again this blood with you”, HE says HE will not drink again this wine. Why do you insist that it’s blood when Jesus HIMSELF calls it wine?

How about because Jesus Himself said “Drink from it all of you, for this MY BLOOD of the new covenant.”

So you are pitting Jesus words against himself?

 

[Matariel]

That is exactly what he thinks. On a previous post He said that since Christ is now at the right hand of the Father, he can’t possibly be here on earth.

He has a very limited god. No, he can’t believe in the Real Presence. His god certainly can’t do that.

The things people will go through to avoid admitting they’re wrong!

Wasn’t pride the first sin, afterall?

 

[benedictus2]

The things people will go through to avoid admitting they’re wrong!

Wasn’t pride the first sin, afterall?

Exactly what I have been saying time and time again. The split after the reformation happened because of pride. Had Luther,et al been more humble, they would not have hacked the Body of Christ to pieces.

 

[Matariel]

Exactly what I have been saying time and time again. The split after the reformation happened because of pride.

Yeah, some of the bishops and clergy were lacking in character, and the “reformers”, instead of really reforming, divided the Body of Christ out of pride.

Had Luther,et al been more humble, they would not have hacked the Body of Christ to pieces.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

AND HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT FOR A FACT?

BECAUSE HE SAID SO in Matthew 18:20. And you are right.

So how do we know that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood and that His flesh is true food indeed and His blood is true drink indeed?

BECAUSE HE SAID SO IN JOHN 6. SEVERAL VERSES IN FACT FROM 51-58. By verse count alone, you can tell that Jesus wants you to know that He is pretty serious about this teaching.

Expression Genisis:49:11blood of vine, Deut:32:14 used to discribe Bloodline,Branches of Vine,used symbolic of people’s heritage Blood lineage;a spreading Vine of lowest stature. Christ came to earth as a low plant a vine he took the lowest form though he was a King We are the fruit of the Vine,the branches that are connected to Christ John:15 Eze:17 See what it means in Hebrew, Aramaic,Greek and dont forget Christ said I am all things to All people In his Love Nancy

 

[Realcatholicgk]

**Hi My Catholic Brothers and Sisters,

Here is the problem: They are not "followers of Christ. Remember:

MATTHEW 13:1 On the same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the sea. 2 And great multitudes were gathered together to Him, so that He got into a boat and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore. 3 Then He spoke many things to them in parables . . . 10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” 11 He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: ‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, and seeing you will see and not perceive; 15 for the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them.’”**

It is like Jesus was talking in code to us! The foolish Protestants CAN’T understand!

Lets all pray for them. “Hail Mary, Full of grace, the Lord is with thee…”

God Bless

 

[benedictus2]

Expression Genisis:49:11blood of vine, Deut:32:14 used to discribe Bloodline,Branches of Vine,used symbolic of people’s heritage Blood lineage;a spreading Vine of lowest stature. Christ came to earth as a low plant a vine he took the lowest form though he was a King We are the fruit of the Vine,the branches that are connected to Christ John:15 Eze:17 See what it means in Hebrew, Aramaic,Greek and dont forget Christ said I am all things to All people In his Love Nancy

Maaaaaan! Please address the points in the post you are replying to.

What does the above have anything to do with my post?

 

[Peter_J]

And here Jesus is telling us that the covenant is in HIS blood. HE doesn’t say this cup of my blood. The new covenant is in HIS blood instead of the blood of the lambs from the passover.

Point of fact if you carefully study the Jewish passover you will find that the Jews take 4 cups of wine during their meal. The 3rd cup which is called the cup of redemption is red wine mixed with warm water to SYMBOLIZE the blood of the lambs slain prior to the exodus. Jesus uses this very cup to show that redemption is now through HIS blood. Given the Apostles were Jewish they fully understood what HE was doing here and what HE meant and it certainly wasn’t transubstantiation.

Well to clarify the teaching the RC claims that the substance is changed to Christ’s physical flesh and blood. But that the accidents which is the part that we see, feel touch, taste etc. are unchanged. That’s why it tastes, smells, feels, looks, and sounds like bread. This is where Aristotelian philosophy comes into play. Aristotle would describe a chair as having a substance and accidents. The substance is the elements of the metal and the fabric you can’t see. The accidents are those outward components you can observe with your senses.

Many scholars within the RCC claim that transubstantiation cannot be gleaned from the texts of scripture and no where in the history of the church do we ever see any ECFs using John 6 to describe communion. Augustine believed in the real presence as I and many others do but in his commentary on John 6 he flat out stated Jesus was speaking figuratively. As Augustine rightly points out, if Christ spoke in a manner suggestive of a crime HE must be speaking figuratively. Further claiming that Christ would never ask Jews to partake in cannibalism. To quote Augustine, “why sharpen your teeth?, if you believe you have already eaten”

To quote Christ, “whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst”.

The only way transubstantiation can be supported is by doing some major gymnastics with scripture.

PEACE

Thanks for that post.

I think it’s fairly easy for Christians of different stripes to agree that Christ is really present in the Eucharist. It’s when we try to go beyond that, and describe how he is present – for example, transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and other theories – that it becomes a lot harder to find agreement.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Oh, so you think Christ is not omnipotent? He can be physically present in as many places as He wants-- He’s God incarnate.

Some of our saints God blessed and they experienced bilocation.

This is funny coming from you, since you’re the one walking away in disbelief (“What, Jesus commands us to eat Him? Nah, He can’t possibly be talking about literally eating Him!” )

You have as yet to refute the fact that trogo, the Greek word used for eat in John 6 is never used in a symbolic way anywhere in the Bible or in Greek secular literature of that time. That alone should make you rethink what you’ve been taught.

And the fact that, “to eat one’s flesh and drink one’s blood” in Jewish culture, if taked non-literally, and taken metaphorically (like you suggest) it means to slander and culminate against. If He was speaking metaphorically as you say, Jesus is saying “Unless you slander and culminate against Me, you have no life in you.”

And we all know that’s nonsensical, so odviously the Catholic position on this is correct.

Why do you just make claims about Scripture without even showing any evidence to support your claim?

If Christ knew the majority of people would interpret it that way, why’d He say it? Wouldn’t He want to ensure that they understood exactly what they meant? He did! He used words and language to ensure that they understood-- that He was speaking of mystically partaking of Him (afterall, in the OT the sacrafice was always consumed afterwards, and was not considered complete until it had been eaten)-- and that’s why they walked away, just as the majority of Protestants since their beginning in the 1500’s have walked away. :nope:

He’s everything you say but he in fact never was 2 places at one time in the human body,for that would deny the fact he came to earth as a man in the flesh,and people in the flesh just cannot be 2 places at the same time. He came in the flesh suffered for real and realy died to and in the flesh.Blood of the vineGEN:49:11 Deut:32:14 an expression back in those days.Read my new thread.Thank You Nancy

 

[Protestant101]

Now that is CHRIST TALKING. What? You can’t hear him? Or refuse to hear him. Thought so.

Ask your questions…give answers to yourself. If only we could hear all of those voices you do…

 

[benedictus2]

Ask your questions…give answers to yourself. If only we could hear all of those voices you do…

Aaah but it is only Christ words we go by You know as I keep saying John 6: 51-58. You know, the verses from the BIble.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Maaaaaan! Please address the points in the post you are replying to.

What does the above have anything to do with my post?

Hi,Dont you remember I answered that in another post? YYYYYYYOOOOUUUUUUU were not paying attention. Only in Spirit,Yes

 

[Protestant101]

It is like Jesus was talking in code to us! The foolish Protestants CAN’T understand!

**Lets all pray for them. “Hail Mary, Full of grace, the Lord is with thee…” ****God Bless **

Mary is dead. “The dead know not anything.” (Eccl.9:4-5) I talk to Jesus, for He is alive; and He knows everything.

You have provided nothing but worldly rationalization, and anecdotal theology to “prove” the Catholic insistence on John 6. But you actually have not proven one bit of HOW or WHY the “flesh” in John 6 is NOT symbolic. All you can do is to repeat like a robot the same 2 or 3 verses, as if the more you say it; the more it will mysteriously “prove” the Pope’s spiritualistic doctrine of Christ being a piece of bread when the blasphemous priests say so.

I have showed you many verses which prove that God’s written word is our “spiritual food” and how we are to “eat of it” regularly. It’s up to you if you ignore the Words of our Lord, but you can’t expect anyone to believe your Pope or your Catechism on this topic when it deliberately denigrates God’s Word as inferior to the Papal pronouncements on John 6.

 

[Matariel]

He’s everything you say but he in fact never was 2 places at one time in the human body,for that would deny the fact he came to earth as a man in the flesh,and people in the flesh just cannot be 2 places at the same time.

Sorry, this doesn’t make any sense to me.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Ask your questions…give answers to yourself. If only we could hear all of those voices you do…

:stretcher:Case closed and the winner is Jesus and the Word:thumbsup: love of Christ Nancy Good for you Protestant101

 

[Protestant101]

Aaah but it is only Christ words we go by You know as I keep saying John 6: 51-58. You know, the verses from the BIble.

You don’t go by this at all. You go by the Pope’s say so on what they mean.

 

[benedictus2]

You don’t go by this at all. You go by the Pope’s say so on what they mean.

Sorry but wrong again. John 6:51-58 are not the Pope’s words but Christ’s.

Why do you evade that all the time hmmmm?

 

[benedictus2]

:stretcher:Case closed and the winner is Jesus and the Word:thumbsup: love of Christ Nancy Good for you Protestant101

Wrong again. Another instance of your inability to read.

So here it is again. John 6:51-58. Tell me when you read those verses, who is speaking?

Please do answer that question as I would so dearly love to know who speaks those words in your Bible.

 

[Protestant101]

Sorry but wrong again. John 6:51-58 are not the Pope’s words but Christ’s.

Why do you evade that all the time hmmmm?

The Bible doesn’t say that the “flesh” is literal. Only the Pope does/has.

The history of this doctrine shows that it was not developed until well after Jesus said those words…You go for the Catholic interpretation, only because the Pope says to. You have to or you cannot be a Catholic

 

[Matariel]

Mary is dead. “The dead know not anything.” (Eccl.9:4-5) I talk to Jesus, for He is alive; and He knows everything.

“To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” Mary is with God.

You have provided nothing but worldly rationalization, and anecdotal theology to “prove” the Catholic insistence on John 6.

Worldy? I’d hardly call it worldly. You still haven’t answered two of my rebuttals, and so far they have gone unchallenged.

This is funny coming from you, since you’re the one walking away in disbelief (“What, Jesus commands us to eat Him? Nah, He can’t possibly be talking about literally eating Him!” )

These points have as yet to be refuted:

You have as yet to refute the fact that trogo, the Greek word used for eat in John 6 is never used in a symbolic way anywhere in the Bible or in Greek secular literature of that time. That alone should make you rethink what you’ve been taught.

And the fact that, “to eat one’s flesh and drink one’s blood” in Jewish culture, if taken metaphorically (like you suggest) it means** to slander and culminate against**. If He was speaking metaphorically as you say, Jesus is saying “Unless you slander and culminate against Me, you have no life in you.”

And we all know that’s nonsensical, so odviously the Catholic position on this is correct.

But you actually have not proven one bit of HOW or WHY the “flesh” in John 6 is NOT symbolic.

Because that view was invented by the humanist Zwingli 1500 years after Christ.

I do not follow the traditions of men as you follow Ultrich Zwingli the humanist.

All you can do is to repeat like a robot the same 2 or 3 verses, as if the more you say it; the more it will mysteriously “prove” the Pope’s spiritualistic doctrine of Christ being a piece of bread when the blasphemous priests say so.

Very funny. So far you haven’t done anything but say, basically, “No, that’s not right! It’s symbolic!” and then not provide any real evidence to support your Zwingli position. St Paul says right in the Scriptures that Communion is a participation in Christ.

I have showed you many verses which prove that God’s written word is our “spiritual food” and how we are to “eat of it” regularly. It’s up to you if you ignore the Words of our Lord, but you can’t expect anyone to believe your Pope or your Catechism on this topic when it deliberately denigrates God’s Word as inferior to the Papal pronouncements on John 6.

This is laughable. I need not respond.