The Eucharist is NOT the body of Christ

[justasking4]

JMJ_coder;3103193]
Hello,

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
When Jesus spoke these words did the wine actually turn into His blood?
JMJ_coder
At the Last Supper - yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Did the bread literally turn into His body as He sat there?
JMJ_coder
At the Last Supper - yes.

Before i respond to your answers i’d like other catholics response to these questions and see if they agree with yours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Did the apostles understand that the Jesus they knew in the flesh was now also to be known as a piece of bread and wine to?
JMJ_coder
I don’t know. But, there are many things that they didn’t understand until after the Resurrection and Pentecost, even as they were happening.

Is there any indication in the passages that refer to the last supper that gives you any indication that they thought of Jesus was also to be known as a piece of bread and wine?

If not there, any other places in the NT?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The answer to these questions will prove which interpretation is correct.
JMJ_coder
How?

If your literal interpretation is correct then the answers you gave above would be supported not only by the scriptures i.e. others also understood Jesus to now also have the nature of bread and wine combined with His nature being God and man.
I’m curious to see if other catholics see it your way to.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

i do believe what He taught here is the truth. However, He is not speaking literally but figuatively.

You have to have a lot of guts and arogance to belief that you are the one with the correct interpretation of the Bible. Cause if you are mistaken then the passage which tells us that whoever will not eat His flash and drink Hs blood still applies to you.

Now let me ask you a question (and I confess I didn’t read every post in this thread): why do you belief it’s not literal? Because you came to that conclusion after studying the original texts and considering the way the Early Christian saw it. Or becaus your pastor says so? Or because you sit home and read your KJV and think you are guided by the Holy Spirit along with the other milions of Christians who disagree with you on almost every conclusion you arive to? Or because you think that it doesn’t make sense? Or simply because you think that God is not able to do this?

 

[agangbern]

Reasoning? Ever notice how often people say things like: “I have my own ideas” or “This means . . .” or “I like to think for myself” when what they really mean is, “My reaction is . . .”

No real research, effort or honest THOUGHT has gone into the supposed “conclusion” at all. The conclusion is a flash-reaction.

Yes. Whether ajk19’s reasoning is correct or wrong, honest or not, he is still reasoning.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Before i respond to your answers i’d like other catholics response to these questions and see if they agree with yours.

Of course they did.

Is there any indication in the passages that refer to the last supper that gives you any indication that they thought of Jesus was also to be known as a piece of bread and wine?

If not there, any other places in the NT?

No, I don’t believe there is such a place in the NT. What does that imply about the Eucharist? That it’s not correct? That would be a falacy called argument from silence.

Jesus said it and that makes it true. The Church from it’s beggining testified this to be the Truth. If the Bible would say that the Apostles got it during the Last Supper, the reality of the Eucharist woudn’t be any less true or false.

If your literal interpretation is correct then the answers you gave above would be supported not only by the scriptures i.e. others also understood Jesus to now also have the nature of bread and wine combined with His nature being God and man.
I’m curious to see if other catholics see it your way to.

Yes, other people understood it. Those present at the Last Supper understood it (either at that time or afterwards) and the early Church understood it as well. Read the early Church Fathers for testimonies.

 

[justasking4]

porthos11;3103456]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
When Jesus spoke these words did the wine actually turn into His blood?
porthos11
Yes. Under the appearance of wine.

Quote:justasking4
Did the bread literally turn into His body as He sat there?
porthos11
Yes, under the appearance of bread.

What do mean by “appearance of”? Either the bread literally turned into His body (human since that is the only body He had) and the wine into His blood or it didn’t. The apostles would be able to determine this by their senses if this indeed had happened. For example when He gave them the cup to drink do we have any indication that they thought they were drinking His real blood?

Quote:justasking4
Did the apostles understand that the Jesus they knew in the flesh was now also to be known as a piece of bread and wine to?
porthos11
Yes, and this is especially confirmed in the Emmaus journey. After Jesus rose, he broke bread with two disciples, after which their eyes were opened. And Luke tells us that their eyes were opened in the breaking of the bread. They recognized him, but he vanished.

This passage though doesn’t support your position though. Just because they recognized Him after the breaking of bread doesn’t mean they believed He was bread and wine.

porthos11
After he had ascended, Acts tells us that they dedicated themselves to prayer and the breaking of the bread.

Again this does not mean what i said previously. If anything they did remember the last supper with Him and what it meant.

Paul understood, and you have his extensive treatment in 1st Corinthians to prove it.

 

[mercygate]

Before i respond to your answers i’d like other catholics response to these questions and see if they agree with yours.

Is there any indication in the passages that refer to the last supper that gives you any indication that they thought of Jesus was also to be known as a piece of bread and wine?

Where do you get the idea that Catholics believe that Jesus is to be known as “a piece of bread and wine.” Nothing the Catholic Church teaches would even hint at that. He comes under the appearance of bread and wine. But that is exactly the opposite of what you seem to think we are saying.

If not there, any other places in the NT?

Have you actually followed this thread? In John 6, the Bread of Life discourse follows the feeding of the 5000. Jesus miraculously feeds the crowd by the hands of the Apostles. We think that’s a pretty big sign of what is to come.

If your literal interpretation is correct then the answers you gave above would be supported not only by the scriptures i.e. others also understood Jesus to now also have the nature of bread and wine combined with His nature being God and man.
I’m curious to see if other catholics see it your way to.

No. His nature is absolutely NOT comboined with bread and wine. Would you be referring to His Divine nature or his human nature?

Honestly, JA4, are you really having as much trouble with this as you claim, or are you just contumacious?

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

JUSTASKING4:

Here are is what the early Church bealieved about the Eucharist. If you still do not believe than I openly challenge you to show show me those who oposed them and interpreted the Truth correctly. And if you do not find any then you must explain us why no one actually complained of this false interpretation that leads only to adolatry. Or has the Church falled into apostasy right after Jesus left the earth?

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

“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?”

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]).

Continued…*

 

[zerocrossing]

i don’t know how well you know the OT. One of the warnings about false gods is that they could not speak, smell or hear and yet those that worshipped them believed that they were god.
This is what the claims about the eucharist leads to this kind of thing.

Haha. I knew that’s where JA was going with those questions!!!

Problem is, JA: you are IMPOSING your rationalistic interpretation on the passage. What Jesus taught, what the Apostles taught, what the early Church taught is all very clear. With your suggestions of idolatry, you are calling Jesus and His Apostles and the ancient Church of the martyrs all liars.

I seem to recall that the Pharisees were convinced - based on their own subjective interpretation of the OT - that Jesus was of the devil. So why should we believe you and your Zwinglian anti-Eucharistic tradition (a rationalistic tradition of men) over Christ Himself and over His Apostles and over the universal testimony of the ancient Church?

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

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 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]).

Ambrose of Milan

“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” ((The Mysteries 22:6, 9 [A.D. 390]).*

 

[revelations]

JA, the only answer that matters is God’s answer. I am only a servant of God, relaying the message to you.

Please, make haste, go to your closest catholic church and ask him yourself! It pains me greatly to see all of this bickering when our Lord is there all by himself all day long. And if you can’t go to the church then at least pray everyday about it. God will answer you, he does answer prayers! The bible is not the final authority, God himself is. By making the written word more important you have made an idol of the word. (not to be mistaken with The Word…)

If you don’t like our answers you don’t have a problem with us, or the pope, but with Jesus Christ himself!

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Yes, it’s very sad when a Christians thinks that the early martirs of the Church died for a bunch of lies and that it took 1600 years to come back to the Truth which is now less apparent then before.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

i do believe what He taught here is the truth. However, He is not speaking literally but figuatively.

I provided several references in multiple books that say “This IS my Body”. How can you deny that?
Additionall, per your request, I posted John 6 along with the Last Supper accounts. Please go back and read them.
Along with the articles I posted for another poster.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

i’m not trying to impose any limits on God but on the interpretations of the catholic church that are not in sync with Scripture. If we take the view that the catholic church is saying here then this means that Jesus not only is the God-man in His nature but also is bread and wine in nature. This is what follows from the catholic view.

No, you are limiting God. You are presuming to tell God that He is unable to fulfill the statement that He made not only to the original 12, but to a hillside full of disciples.
YOU are telling God that he is unable to do something, and that what we believe is impossible because YOU say so. How does that, at all, begin to take into account that God:

1. Created the world out of nothing
2. Created life in a Virgin
3. Made Himself human
4. Raised the dead
5. Gave the ability to speak in multiple tounges to a bunch of illiterate fishermen

i didn’t say ridiculous but it certainly is not a proper understanding of what the scriptures say if you take a strictly wooden literal view.

You are the one taking a strictly wooden literal view. You are saying that because the Bible does not “clearly state” (your interpretation) that the Real Presence exists, that it must not. HOWEVER, you have been provided with the scriptures with the correct Greek, the historical and cultural background, the Old Testament prophesy fulfilled in Our Lord Jesus Christ, along with the several Biblical passages that not only state the Real Presence, but affirm each other as well. You have also been provided with several Church Fathers who also state the Real Presence.
It is you, not us, who has the “strictly wooden literal view”.

 

[mangy_dog]

i do believe what He taught here is the truth. However, He is not speaking literally but figuatively.

Stop for a moment and imagen this scenario:

This word is to harsh, we cannot stand this. And suddenly Jesus took off running after them and said, " hey wait a minute guys, what I meant was a symbol of my body and blood". Ohhh! (they said), gee we were worried there for a moment that you were talking about your real body and blood.

                                       Or maybe this scenario:

The disciples walked away and Jesus turned to His apostles and said, " I fooled them. They thought I was talking about my real body and blood. Dummies, they didn’t realize that I was only talking about bread and wine". As the apostles and Jesus shared a chuckle.

Do you get the real meaning of what I’m trying to convey to you?

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Specifically in the suuper accounts do we see anything promise that eating the bread and wine would lead to eternal life?

I am not going to post them again.
Jesus says that his blood is the blood the New Covenant. He also states that he is the Bread of Life, and he who eats of this bread ad drinks this cup will have Eternal Life. He is also a priest of the order of Malcezidek. Which means that he will offer an unbloodied sacrifice of bread and wine to the Lord

Jesus = Sacrificial Pascal Lamb
BUT only the High Priest can offer the Pascal Lamb as sacrifice. Therefore Jesus = High Priest
Additionally, Jesus = Bread of Life
Bread of Life = Eternal Life
Also, John consistently refers to Jesus as the Lamb of God, which only furthers the idea of Jesus as Pascal Sacrifice.

Ergo:
Jesus = High Priest = Pascal Lamb = Bread of Life = Eternal Life

But wait, how can Jesus be the Pascal Lamb AND the High Priest? Because, again, only the High Priest can offer the Pascal Lamb as the sacrifice to forgive the sins of the Jews. So, we see here that Jesus is already being 2 things simultaniously- High Priest and Sacrifice.

i don’t know how well you know the OT. One of the warnings about false gods is that they could not speak, smell or hear and yet those that worshipped [sic] them believed that they were god.
This is what the claims about the eucharist [sic]leads to this kind of thing.

I don’t know how much of the Old Testament you know, but Jesus as Bread of Life, Pascal Sacrifice, and High Priest are clearly present. One also has to take into account the historical and cultural references that are used in referencing Jesus as the Messiah and King of the Jews. Again, you must take the entirety of scripture into account rather than bits and pieces.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Is there any indication in the passages that refer to the last supper that gives you any indication that they thought of Jesus was also to be known as a piece of bread and wine?

If not there, any other places in the NT?

Again, I have already provided with the verses in which Christ refers to Himself as The Bread of Life.

If your literal interpretation is correct then the answers you gave above would be supported not only by the scriptures i.e. others also understood Jesus to now also have the nature of bread and wine combined with His nature being God and man.
I’m curious to see if other catholics see it your way to.

Others do understand. Catholics are not the only ones to hold to the Real Presence. Church Fathers have also provided dissertations on the Real Presence.
And if you are really all that interested, go look for the Eucharistic miracles that have occurred.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Yes, it’s very sad when a Christians thinks that the early martirs of the Church died for a bunch of lies and that it took 1600 years to come back to the Truth which is now less apparent then before.

It’s amazing that not one of the Christian martyrs said “Wait no! We aren’t eating Jesus! It’s just bread!” Nope,t hey died for the charge of cannibalism, because they Romans just didn’t get it.

JA4-
Before we continue this charade of a debate, you need to go read “The Lamb’s Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth”. Then you will have a good foundation for getting anything we are saying to you.

 

[justasking4]

GandalfTheWhite;3104617]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
i do believe what He taught here is the truth. However, He is not speaking literally but figuatively.

GandalfTheWhite
You have to have a lot of guts and arogance to belief that you are the one with the correct interpretation of the Bible.

justasking4
The question of how a person knows if they have the correct interpretation is absolutely important. It won’t do to claim that a given church has the correct interpretation on their say so. What is required is what we do in other fields to determine the truthfulness of something. What we need to look at are the reasons given, support for those reasons, context of the passage, word meanings and what do other passages say. All these are important in applying.
Are you arrogant if you think your interpretations are right and consider others wrong?

GandalfTheWhite
Cause if you are mistaken then the passage which tells us that whoever will not eat His flash and drink Hs blood still applies to you.

justasking4
Not sure what you are saying here. Can you clarify?

GandalfTheWhite
Now let me ask you a question (and I confess I didn’t read every post in this thread): why do you belief it’s not literal?

justasking4
context and comparison with other passages. Jesus said a lot of “strange” things if we take them literally. He said He was the door and light. Should we take these sayings in a literal sense? If we do, what would follow from it? I think you agree all kinds of absurd conclusions that would lead us to think Him mad.

He used these figures of speech throughout His ministry. In this sense of eating and drinking make much more sense than taking it literally which cannot be supported from various texts.

GandalfTheWhite
Because you came to that conclusion after studying the original texts and considering the way the Early Christian saw it.

justasking4
I have come to my conclusions by looking at the scripture texts and comparing them to what the catholic church teaches.

GandalfTheWhite
Or because your pastor says so?

justasking4
Most pastors I listen to don’t address these issues that much.

GandalfTheWhite
Or because you sit home and read your KJV and think you are guided by the Holy Spirit along with the other milions of Christians who disagree with you on almost every conclusion you arive to?

justasking4
I don’t believe this is the way it works. A person must do diligent study to gain understanding. Not an easy thing to do.

GandalfTheWhite

Or because you think that it doesn’t make sense?

justasking4
It may make sense but that doesn’t mean its true.

GandalfTheWhite

Or simply because you think that God is not able to do this?

justasking4
I suppose He could. The issue is though, did He? That’s where the debate is.

 

[jmcrae]

The question of how a person knows if they have the correct interpretation is absolutely important. It won’t do to claim that a given church has the correct interpretation on their say so.

So, what makes your interpretation valid, other than your say-so? Is a random individual more trustworthy than Christ’s Church?

What is required is what we do in other fields to determine the truthfulness of something. What we need to look at are the reasons given, support for those reasons, context of the passage, word meanings and what do other passages say. All these are important in applying.

People have been doing that for you throughout this entire thread, but you are ignoring them.

Are you arrogant if you think your interpretations are right and consider others wrong?

If others have strong evidence for theirs, and you have nothing but “because I said so,” then yeah - that’s arrogant.

You haven’t responded at all to the parallel statements of Christ in the Bread of Life discourse and the statements He made at the Last Supper - why would He repeat Himself almost word-for-word, if there were no connection between the two things?

You also haven’t responded to the translation of the Greek that has been presented to you several times in this thread.

context and comparison with other passages. Jesus said a lot of “strange” things if we take them literally. He said He was the door and light. Should we take these sayings in a literal sense? If we do, what would follow from it? I think you agree all kinds of absurd conclusions that would lead us to think Him mad.

In these cases, Jesus is using the Messianic language of the Prophets, who used these metaphors in their prophecies about Jesus. He is quoting their sayings in order to let people know, “Yes, I’m the One that they were talking about.” These were commonly-used metaphors.

The “metaphor” of “eat my body, drink my blood” did not exist, though. He was not quoting from anything, or using a saying of the people, in this particular case - which means that we need to understand this particular saying differently than we understand His other sayings.

He used these figures of speech throughout His ministry. In this sense of eating and drinking make much more sense than taking it literally which cannot be supported from various texts.

Actually, the literal sense is the only sense that fits, because there are no metaphors that correspond even remotely to this saying of His.

I have come to my conclusions by looking at the scripture texts and comparing them to what the catholic church teaches.

I’m sure that came out wrong, but it sounds like you’re saying that you began by assuming that whatever the Catholic Church teaches has to be wrong, and that you made sure you were right by checking to see that the Church teaches the opposite. (The “anything but Catholic” school of theology.)

I don’t believe this is the way it works. A person must do diligent study to gain understanding. Not an easy thing to do.

Everyone in this thread except for you and ajk19 has, in fact, been doing this.

 

[justasking4]

mercygate;3104606]Not at all. The bread and wine are ESSENTIALLY and SUBSTANTIALLY transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. What remains is the APPEARANCE of bread and wine. “Essence” and “substance” here are technical terms; for purposes of this discussion, they are not used as they are in ordinary speech.

I’m still not understanding you. If a real phyiscal change has taken place then there must be evidence for it that can be discerned with your senses. Without this you really don’t have anything going on.

We do take a literal view of Scripture but not a literal-istic view. We certainly do not take a “wooden” view of Scripture, since we believe it to be “God-breathed.”

I believe Catholics would look at some of your come-backs to our attempts to convey our view of the Real Presence (especailly the ones that start with “where in the Bible does it say . . .”) and find your approach to be extremely “wooden”. I don’t mean that as a sniper shot. It just seems that your basic launch point is that Scripture should be like the owner’s manual on your Chevrolet.

The primary reason i do so is to see if the Scriptures truly teach what is being claimed. In matters of doctrine and practice the starting point and the foundations should always be the Scriptures since they alone are inspired-inerrant. Without them you are then having to build on the ideas of men who can be wrong and have been.

The more I engage in discussions like this one, the more I appreciate the phrase “Ex corde Ecclesiae” – “from the heart of the Church.”

Of course, non-Catholics will claim that looking at Scripture from the heart of the Church is somehow defective because the Holy Spirit is supposed to interpret it privately, just for you.

i don’t think that the role of the Holy Spirit is to “interpret” the Scriptures. I can’t think of any passages that would support that. Rather it takes hard and diligent study to understand the scriptures. That was Paul’ advice to Timothy in I Timothy 4:14-16.

But once you understand that Scripture is God-breathed by the Holy Spirit from within the Church, then accept Scripture in its fuller context, and no longer view it as a stand-alone artifact.

To do what you say here a person would have to assume the catholic church has always interpreted correctly the scriptures. There are to many problems with this approach. That does not mean we can’t learn from the past on how the church believed things. Somethings they got right some they didn’t.