The Eucharist is NOT the body of Christ

[pete_29]

Huh? What do you do when you read the Scriptures and you want to know what a particular verse means? To whom do you go to since your church has interpreted so few?

Yes, I try to interpret what I read, but I don’t claim to have a perfect interpretation of Scripture as you seem to be doing.

 

[tm30]

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.

How did the Apostles know that Jesus’ body was glorified? It had all the appearances of His crucified body - nailholes and all. If you can answer that, then you can understand how something that has the appearance of bread and wine, substantively isn’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?

Theologically, you have to go back to Genesis 1, and every passage that reads, “And God said”. Jesus, the Word, can create whatever He wants by merely speaking it. If you don’t believe that when Jesus said, “this is my blood,” it actually became His blood, then you certainly can’t believe that when He said “Let there be Light”, light was actually created.

If God wants to create a turkey tha tastes like chocolate cake, it’s still a turkey. If God wants to change wine to blood while leaving its accidents intact, He can do that, too. Or do you deny His power?

 

[pete_29]

That may be. Why don’t you yourself show me the errors of my thinking. Maybe you can help me see what others have failed to demonstrate.

Okay, I’m probably just :banghead: , but I’ll try. Just so you don’t think I’ ve abandoned you my attempt will be in my next post. I type to slow to keep up and I have to clean the german chocolate cake off of my keyboard.

 

[justasking4]

Yes, I try to interpret what I read, but I don’t claim to have a perfect interpretation of Scripture as you seem to be doing.

Just because i’m passionate and defend my view doesn’t mean its perfect. There was only ONE who could do that.

 

[James224]

Again go back to the supper accounts and see if there is any promise of eternal life. A quick read will answer this question in the negative.

Trying to combine John 6 with the supper accounts won’t work since in context it has nothing to do with the Lord’s supper. Jesus is teaching something far different in John 6 than the eucharist.

Moy Comment: Yes it does. John 6:4 says, “Now the pasch, the festival day of the Jews, was near at hand.” This means the John 6 Discourse is under the umbrella of the Passover.Now Mark 14:12 says, " Now on the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the pasch, the disciples say to him: Whither wilt thou that we go and prepare for thee to eat the pasch?" This verse is at the beginning of the Last Supper. This shows the 2 are meant to be tied together. James224

 

[tm30]

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?.

I have further questions for you:

How do you know the Bible is the inspired Word of God? By all appearances it’s just paper and ink.

How do you prove that it’s all inspired?

What is “inspiration”? Can you describe what it looks like? If you say it looks like a Bible, I’ll tell you the Bible looks like a book and nothing more.

If you’re going to challenge our belief that the bread and wine substantively become the body and blood of Christ, I’m going to challenge your belief that the Bible is substantively the inspired Word of God.

 

[teachccd]

Eight Hundred and Twenty Three Posts and we still have Protestants?? HMMM…Nice going Mr. Luther. You believed in the Real Presence but your sola scriptura sure did a number on the rest of your followers…teachccd

 

[teachccd]

If you’re going to challenge our belief that the bread and wine substantively become the body and blood of Christ, I’m going to challenge your belief that the Bible is substantively the inspired Word of God.

For clarification: Catholics do believe in the Bible as the inspired Word of God. We just got ours from the Church that Christ founded and left for us and not from Barnes and Nobles some 2000 years later…teachccd

 

[justasking4]

tm30;3106335]

Quote:justasking4
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.
tm30
How did the Apostles know that Jesus’ body was glorified? It had all the appearances of His crucified body - nailholes and all. If you can answer that, then you can understand how something that has the appearance of bread and wine, substantively isn’t.

The problem in comparing the risen Christ to the eucharist is problematic. In the case of the risen Christ they had evidence that He rose from the dead and that He was demonstrating to them the powers of a resurrected body by appearing and disappearing. They could see and touch His body.
With the eucharist you don’t have any of this. You are asked to believe in something that has no evidence to your senses and you would reject outright in other areas of life it told to believe in this way.

Quote:justasking4
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?
tm30
Theologically, you have to go back to Genesis 1, and every passage that reads, “And God said”. Jesus, the Word, can create whatever He wants by merely speaking it. If you don’t believe that when Jesus said, “this is my blood,” it actually became His blood, then you certainly can’t believe that when He said “Let there be Light”, light was actually created.

If God wants to create a turkey tha tastes like chocolate cake, it’s still a turkey. If God wants to change wine to blood while leaving its accidents intact, He can do that, too. Or do you deny His power?

No doubt God can do almost anything. The question is: did He in this instance of the eucharist? So far the evidence is lacking that He did.

 

[teachccd]

tm30;3106335]

The problem in comparing the risen Christ to the eucharist is problematic. In the case of the risen Christ they had evidence that He rose from the dead and that He was demonstrating to them the powers of a resurrected body by appearing and disappearing. They could see and touch His body.
With the eucharist you don’t have any of this. You are asked to believe in something that has no evidence to your senses and you would reject outright in other areas of life it told to believe in this way.

No doubt God can do almost anything. The question is: did He in this instance of the eucharist? So far the evidence is lacking that He did.

So then what you are saying is that if we cut Jesus and inspected His blood under a microscope we would have seen God??

 

[revelations]

Eight Hundred and Twenty Three Posts and we still have Protestants?? HMMM…Nice going Mr. Luther. You believed in the Real Presence but your sola scriptura sure did a number on the rest of your followers…teachccd

Hahahaha, yes we still have protestants. I’m thinking it’s about time to close this thread, we’ve exhausted almost every avenue of argument right down to asking God himself…

 

[justasking4]

Moy Comment: Yes it does. John 6:4 says, “Now the pasch, the festival day of the Jews, was near at hand.” This means the John 6 Discourse is under the umbrella of the Passover.Now Mark 14:12 says, " Now on the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the pasch, the disciples say to him: Whither wilt thou that we go and prepare for thee to eat the pasch?" This verse is at the beginning of the Last Supper. This shows the 2 are meant to be tied together. James224

The problem with this is that even though the passover is mentioned its not the focus of the passage. Its not about literally eating bread but how we inherit eternal life (v47) and how we are to get the life. When Jesus is speaking of eating and drinking He is speaking figuratively not literally.

 

[justasking4]

So then what you are saying is that if we cut Jesus and inspected His blood under a microscope we would have seen God??

No necessarily. Think of the miracles Jesus did. When He healed a blind man or cripple and we sent them to a doctor to examine them would the doctor expect to see a real phyical change in these people? Of course. There would be evidence of a real physical change in their bodies.
This would also apply to the claims of the eucharist.

 

[tm30]

The problem in comparing the risen Christ to the eucharist is problematic. In the case of the risen Christ they had evidence that He rose from the dead and that He was demonstrating to them the powers of a resurrected body by appearing and disappearing. They could see and touch His body.

Demons can appear and disappear and walk through walls - that’s not necessarily the power of resurrected body. The proof of Jesus’ resurrection was in the fact that His body was marked by the wounds of the nails and the lance. By all appearances, His body was still grossly deformed by loss of tissue. Those are certainly not the hallmarks of a body in perfection, but substantively, it was. The fact that they could see and touch His body seems to indicate a material quality to it, but Scripture tells us that His body had been glorified. Why?

With the eucharist you don’t have any of this. You are asked to believe in something that has no evidence to your senses and you would reject outright in other areas of life it told to believe in this way.

You believe in a God that is equally alien to the senses of touch, taste, smell, site, hearing. How do you manage that?

No doubt God can do almost anything. The question is: did He in this instance of the eucharist? So far the evidence is lacking that He did.

Where’s the evidence that God created the world? We believe because the words of Scripture indicate that by the power of the spoken Word, it came to be. If the Word, speaking in the flesh, didn’t really change bread and wine into His body and blood, there’s even less evidence that He created the world.

 

[planter654]

Is it not true that some church fathers held to uncatholic beliefs?
Is it not also true that just because some may have believed for a long time does not make it true?
The problem is the way the catholic church interprets these scriptures to support its doctrines. A careful exergesis of the passages just don’t support the catholic position.

Depends what you mean by “interpreting literally”. There are a number of interpretative guidelines that must be adhered to if we are truly to understand the scriptures. Sometimes a strict literalism is required sometime metaphorical. It depends on the context and what is being discussed.

Remember when the Apostles thought Jesus did not eat, what was Jesus replied. He said he ate but he ate food from his father. I forget where that is in the bible. Jesus said food that you do not know about… from my father something like that.

thanks God Bless

 

[porthos11]

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.

Again sez you. I think you have never really taken the time to read John 6 through, and consider the meaning of the Greek. Only the Catholic interpretation accounts for the linguistic and cultural background.

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.

Wrong. We absolutely believe that at Mass, the bread and wine cease to exist.

Not so. Paul in Philippians 2:6-8 sheds some light on your statement.

And I know that. What I am saying is that if you believe that Jesus cannot be in the form of bread because of what the species cannot do, then by the same logic, the Incarnation is equally ridiculous because the mere presence of God should cause people to die. Yet, you point out Philippians 2, which PRECISELY supports my contention that Jesus, even though his presence no longer killed people, never ceased to be God.

By your own citation, you blow your arbitrary criteria out of the water.

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.

Again, says you. We take a “strictly wooden literal view” because Jesus never corrected those who did, even when he lost them, which is totally inconsistent with the Jesus who always corrected misunderstandings. We take a strictly literal view because to do otherwise would do violence to the Greek.

But you never addressed the Greek analysis we gave you.

 

[porthos11]

tm30;3106335]

The problem in comparing the risen Christ to the eucharist is problematic. In the case of the risen Christ they had evidence that He rose from the dead and that He was demonstrating to them the powers of a resurrected body by appearing and disappearing. They could see and touch His body.
With the eucharist you don’t have any of this. You are asked to believe in something that has no evidence to your senses and you would reject outright in other areas of life it told to believe in this way.

No doubt God can do almost anything. The question is: did He in this instance of the eucharist? So far the evidence is lacking that He did.

No. We have his word. Either you believe him or you don’t.

Again, we walk by faith, not by sight. If you prefer that God prove himself to you that’s your business. But Christ is the Truth, and what is word is, is.

He said, “This IS my Body.” It is you who refuse to believe him. Therefore, you call him a liar.

 

[porthos11]

No necessarily. Think of the miracles Jesus did. When He healed a blind man or cripple and we sent them to a doctor to examine them would the doctor expect to see a real phyical change in these people? Of course. There would be evidence of a real physical change in their bodies.
This would also apply to the claims of the eucharist.

More of your abitrary, thin-air conditions. The Bible certainly says no such thing.

There was a change in the healed people because by the very nature of healing, there must be a change.

By the very nature of the Eucharist, there is no change in appearance expected, otherwise, how can he say, “Take, eat” without disgusting his disciples? But then, since Jesus’ word is not good enough for you, you walk by sight, not by faith.

 

[pete_29]

That may be. Why don’t you yourself show me the errors of my thinking. Maybe you can help me see what others have failed to demonstrate.

Mt 26: 26-28 During the meal Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to His disciples. “Take this and eat it,” He said, “this is my Body.” Then He took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them. “All of you must drink from it,” He said, “for this is my Blood, The Blood of the covenant, to be poured out in behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.”

Mk 14: 22-24 During the meal He took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. “Take this,” He said, " this is my Body." He likewise took a cup, gave thanks and passed it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them: " This is my blood, the Blood of the covenant, to be poured out on behalf of many."

Lk 22: 19-20 Then, taking bread and giving thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying: “This is my Body to be given for you. Do this in rememberance of me.” He did the same with the cup after eating, saying as He did so: This is my Blood, which will be shed for you."

 Notice that Jesus did not say this is a symbol of my body and blood, or lets pretend this is my body and blood, but He said "This is my Body" and "This is my Blood".

 "Do this in memory of me"has to mean that He wanted this act to be carried on or why else would He say it.


I don't see how it can mean anything else but that He is present in the Eucharist.

 

[tm30]

When Jesus is speaking of eating and drinking He is speaking figuratively not literally.

Jesus’ actions and words following the revulsion and alienation of those who left Him indicate otherwise. This was also the moment when John tells us that Judas entered the path to perdition:

John 6:70,71

70] Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?”
71] He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.