The Eucharist IS Scriptural!

[Stephen_C]

I’m not sure I get your drift…could you explain?

I think he is talking about the Catholic view both/and (can be both). As apposed to the Protestant view of it can be either/or (but not both)

 

[Pax]

I got it…I’m a little slow at times. Thanks.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, mommy,

When I think about it, it is very overwhelming, and humbling…

As a Cradel Catholic - it is still overwhelming and humbling… We have a very loving God, Who has brought (and is bringing) many to a knowledge of His Love and His Church.

Looking forward to your Easter Vigil experience.

God bless

 

[Church_Militant]

From my testimony.

I cry tears of humble joy during the consecration at Mass because I am so wrapped up in worship of my risen Lord and Savior. I don’t care who notices or what they might think. I’m more concerned with making sure that Jesus hears me when I say, “My Lord and my God.” (John 20:28)

 

[quacker66]

God bless you. A very dear person to me said if I could prove that communion at Mass was not just a memorial but actually the Body and Blood of Christ he’d return to the Church. These responses are the proof I needed.

I think I am going to have go give up all my other emailing groups and stick to this site and do the recommended apologetic readings. I have so many friends and family that have left the Church, and I want to see them back Home. But I’m really going to have to discipline myself to pray and study, and let the group and the Holy Spirit guide me.

I am so happy to have come to this site.

Theresa

 

[TobyLue]

I just finished reading through this whole thread that was resurrected from some years back after several years in hibernation.
There were all sorts of arguments as to why the Eucharist is just a symbol and that Jesus was speaking metaphorically. I just want to add to this post:

:

Originally Posted by **Truthstalker **

The whole thing is difficult to imagine. Posted by CM:

         But so is the idea of the Incarnation, (God becoming man yet remaining God!) and that by the Holy Spirit within a virgin!, the Trinity, (3 Persons/one God), John 3:16, (God loves US so much that He gave His only Son to die for us on a cross to reconcile us to Himself!?).

Face it TS. All of Christianity is miraculous mystery and mystical.

The JW’s cannot comprehend how there are Three Persons in one God, neither can the Muslims. “The whole thing is difficult to imagine.” That is what many of Jesus’ disciple said, even though not in those exact word but they used the words“…. this is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it:?” (Jerusalem Bible) Does this some similar to “The whole thing is difficult to imagine”? One thing: We know that Satan throughout history is always putting doubts into peoples minds. In Genesis we see where Satan tells Eve “…did God really say…”. And we still now a days see the same thing. But to add to CM’s response regarding the idea of the Incarnation, the JW’s cannot believe that Jesus is God because how can God die? We as Catholics believe that yes, Jesus is God, so God died on the Cross. But how can that be? The whole thing is difficult to imagine!!

  There are many, many things that we will not understand here on earth and God has revealed all that is necessary for our salvation and some of those things we can try to explain through earthly means,  but can’t fully understand and we will never fully understand until hopefully we are with our Lord in heaven.  One thing to add that CM mentioned about “God becoming man yet remaining God and that by the Holy Spirit within a virgin!” I add, what did the angel tell Mary”  Luke 1:38 **“..for nothing is impossible to God.”**

  That’s right, nothing is impossible and if he said “This IS my body, this IS my blood” who am I, a mere creature, to argue with God.  It was said before I don’t know by whom “God said it, case closed.”  I don’t know who mentioned it also that the reformers knew that since they were separating themselves from the true Church who had the priesthood that could confect the Eucharist into the Body and Blood of Jesus, they had to come up with all sort of ideas to disprove the Eucharist because they would no longer have the priesthood.  If they didn’t disprove that, then people would not follow them, so they came up with all of excuses and teachings that had 1500 years of history and made up their own interpretations.  This is still going on today and we can see the chaos that it has created.  Hundreds if not thousands of different churches being founded by whoever claims “I have the Holy Spirit” and make up their own self-interpretation.  History is full of people who have gone astray and regretfully have carried souls with them.  But the Scripture warns of us those preaching a different Gospel.  Those gospels did not adhere to 1500 years of Christian teaching and many heresies were put down by the Church.   These heretics wanted to change the Church but the Church stood firm on her teachings.  The reformers broke away and started their own man-made doctrines and ever since if anybody disagrees with any teaching, they just go down the block and set up their own church and preach whatever they want because they are “led by the spirit”. They are a “bible believing church!!!.” Unfortunately it is NOT the Holy Spirit, but an earthly man-made spirit that they are following and they are coming up with their own beliefs.

Many will quote ECF’s but they fail to understand that even though the Church considers many as ECF, some of them regretfully fell into error later in life; ie Tertullian, Origin, etc. The ECF’s on their own did not have full authority but only if they were teaching what the WHOLE CHURCH taught. Many of the ECF’s might not have taught exactly what the Church was teaching but they were obedient to the Church and agreed to Her teachings and did not take the route of Martin Luther and regretfully its still going on today and unfortunately will continue till the end of time. But guess what? The Church will stand firm on Her ground and WILL NOT CHANGE HER TEACHINGS. Why? Because She is the Bride of Christ and Jesus will not…I repeat, WILL NOT abandon her!!! That is His promise!!! I will stand with Jesus’ Church and not some man-made church, with their “I have the Holy Spirt” thing and their own man-made self-interpretation.
God Bless..

 

[Church_Militant]

Thanks guys.

There is a lot in this thread.

I posted this about 4 years ago. Wow…

 

[Mickey]

Thanks guys.

There is a lot in this thread.

I posted this about 4 years ago. Wow…

And I was there when you posted it my good friend. Time is going too fast, eh?

I just noticed that you are a forum master and I am but a lowly veteran. I need 10,000 more posts to catch you.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TobyLue,

It was a real pleasure and blessing to read your post. Additionally, this was an excellent comment on the ECF.

Many will quote ECF’s but they fail to understand that even though the Church considers many as ECF, some of them regretfully fell into error later in life; ie Tertullian, Origin, etc.  The ECF’s on their own did not have full authority but only if they were teaching what the WHOLE CHURCH taught.  Many of the ECF’s might not have taught exactly what the Church was teaching but they were obedient to the Church and agreed to Her teachings and did not take the route of Martin Luther and regretfully its still going on today and unfortunately will continue till the end of time.  But guess what?  The Church will stand firm on Her ground and WILL NOT CHANGE HER TEACHINGS.  Why?  Because She is the Bride of Christ and Jesus will not....I repeat, WILL NOT abandon her!!!!!  That is His promise!!!!!  I will stand with Jesus' Church and not some man-made church, with their "I have the Holy Spirt" thing and their own man-made self-interpretation. 

  God Bless..

God bless,

 

[sinner06]

I was wondering, if you believe in the Real Presence, what do you make of verses like Acts 7:48, “48"However, the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands”?
Just wondering

 

[Randy_Carson]

I was wondering, if you believe in the Real Presence, what do you make of verses like Acts 7:48, “48"However, the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands”?
Just wondering

God dwells in heaven. However, Jesus is really, truly and substantially present in the Eucharist.

This IS my body. This IS my blood.

He didn’t say, “This represents my body, etc.”, did he?

 

[sinner06]

God dwells in heaven. However, Jesus is really, truly and substantially present in the Eucharist.

This IS my body. This IS my blood.

He didn’t say, “This represents my body, etc.”, did he?

The verse isn’t just talking about the fact that God dwells in heaven, it specifically says he does NOT dwell in houses made with human hands. As far as I know, every Catholic church in the world has been built with human hands.

 

[NotWorthy]

The verse isn’t just talking about the fact that God dwells in heaven, it specifically says he does NOT dwell in houses made with human hands. As far as I know, every Catholic church in the world has been built with human hands.

Yes, this presents a conundrum, for God specifically ordered a Temple to be built by Solomon so that He could dwell with His people. How do you explain that?

I’m not sure, though, if you think Catholics look to the Church as the place where God dwells, exclusively, for God is everywhere. Jesus’ Body, for example, is in Heaven right now and no Catholic claims otherwise. His presence, sacramentally, is in the Eucharist.

But are you saying that Jesus is specifically not present in a Church since its been made with human hands.

 

[sinner06]

Yes, this presents a conundrum, for God specifically ordered a Temple to be built by Solomon so that He could dwell with His people. How do you explain that?

I’m not sure, though, if you think Catholics look to the Church as the place where God dwells, exclusively, for God is everywhere. Jesus’ Body, for example, is in Heaven right now and no Catholic claims otherwise. His presence, sacramentally, is in the Eucharist.

But are you saying that Jesus is specifically not present in a Church since its been made with human hands.

No, I do not think the Catholic Church teaches that God dwells exclusively in their churches, nor do I think that the Bible is saying that God isn’t present in pagan temples, since he is, of course, present everywhere, I think it is saying that God is not specially present anywhere in particular. I don’t believe He is any more present in a consecrated host than he is anywhere else. The Catholic Church claims that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist, hence, Eucharistic Adoration, etc. However, the only meaning I can find for this verse, the one stated above, seems to contradict the idea that he is more present in the tabernacle than he is anywhere else.

As for the fact God ordered a temple to be built by by Solomon to be dwelt in, the verses immediately preceding the one I gave seem to imply that God was never present there, “46David found favor in God’s sight, and asked that he might find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob.
47But it was Solomon who built a house for Him.
48However, the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands”
It seems to imply that God never dwelled there. Just like how the book of Hebrews says that animal sacrifices can’t really take away sins, that it was just prefiguring Christ’s sacrifice, I’m not sure if God really occupied that temple, especially given the above Bible verses. Though I am a novice Bible scholar at best, so feel free to correct me, but I don’t think God dwells in a consecrated host, or in a tabernacle. I don’t believe he dwells in any place especially, but is everywhere. Again, feel free to correct me.

Or if He had been present there, He no longer was at the time of the New Covenant.

Also, the Catholic Church teaches that Christ Transubstantiated Himself at the last supper, correct? That the Last Supper was the first example of the Eucharist? Correct me if I’m wrong, because I often am.

sinner06:

Also, the Catholic Church teaches that Christ Transubstantiated Himself at the last supper, correct? That the Last Supper was the first example of the Eucharist? Correct me if I’m wrong, because I often am.

Because if they do, I’m afraid I don’t understand how Jesus could have been re-presenting a sacrifice that hadn’t happened yet? Wouldn’t that have made the whole thing meaningless? If they want to argue that the first Eucharist was some point after the Resurrection, that’s one thing, but the idea that the Last Supper was an example of the Eucharist seems flawed.

 

[sinner06]

Anyone?

 

[Th0t]

How many times does Christ have to repeat Himself???

It took the Jews at least 5 times to really understand He was not kidding…does Christ have to say it for a 6th time for Christians to believe in His word? How many more times must he says AMEN (truly, verily)???

The Greek word for amen is αμην and transliterated, “amhn.”

Compare the following verses of the Gospels where Jesus says ‘Amen’ when starting…how many of them are figurative?

Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” -John 6:54

Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.” -John 8:58

And he said to him, “Amen, amen, I say to you, you will see the sky opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” - John 1:51

Jesus answered, and said to him,“Amen, amen I say to you, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”–John 3:3

Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.”–John 3:5

“Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes in the one who sent me has eternal life and will not come to condemnation, but has passed from death to life.”-John 5:24

“Amen, amen, I say to you, the hour is coming and is now here when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.”- John 5:25

“Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.”- John 6:47

“Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” -Matthew 5:18

“Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.” - Matthew 5:26

“Amen, amen, I say to you, you will weep and mourn, while the world rejoices; you will grieve, but your grief will become joy.” - John 16:20

“When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.”–Matthew 6:5

"When you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites. They neglect their appearance, so that they may appear to others to be fasting. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.–Matthew 6:16

"When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Amen, I say to you, in no one (not even) in Israel have I found such faith.”–Matthew 8:10

“Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town (that rejects the Gospel).” -Matthew 10:15

When they persecute you in one town, flee to another. Amen, I say to you, you will not finish the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. -Matthew 10:23

And whoever gives only a cup of cold water to one of these little ones to drink because he is a disciple–amen, I say to you, he will surely not lose his reward."–Matthew 10:42

The Punishment of Rejecting the Eucharist (which is the Body and Blood of Christ, the Word of the Lord)

The phrase “do this in rememberance of me” (anamnesis) is evidence both of Jesus’ Divinity and His Institution of the Memorial Sacrifice in which He makes Himself present. Luke’s Gospel is the only Gospel that includes this clause.
And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. - Luke 22:19
And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.- 1 Corinthians 11:24-25
If at any time you shall have a banquet, and on your festival days, and on the first days of your months, you shall sound the trumpets over the holocausts, and the sacrifices of peace offerings, that they may be to you for a remembrance of your God. I am the Lord your God.- Numbers 10:10
But in them there is made a commemoration of sins every year. - Hebrews 10:3
But thy wrath endured not for ever, but they were troubled for a short time for their correction, having a sign of salvation to put them in remembrance of the commandment of thy law.

As we see Christ Instituted a “memorial sacrifice” of “ME,” instead of “God,” thus showing Jesus is God.

In support of the doctrine of ‘transubstantiation,’ the Greek grammar of Mt. 26:26 is laid out very carefully. For example, the clause (touto estin to soma = ‘This is the body of me’) contains the neuter adjective το (to) meaning “this”. As a neuter gender, it cannot refer to αρτον (arton) meaning bread, since αρτον (arton) is a masculine noun. Hence, the meaning is not, ‘This bread is my body.’ Rather, since the word σωμα ((soma) meaning ‘body’) is a neuter noun, the neuter ( refer to it, and thus the meaning of Jesus’ words is: ‘This [new substance] is the body of me, ‘ not ‘this bread is the body of me.’

Regarding the blood in Mt. 26:28, in the clause (touto gar estin to aima mou = ‘this is my blood’), (‘this’) is, again, a neuter adjective, corresponding to the neuter (the same neuter gender as – oh my can’t type it). It is showing again that the biblical writers were very careful in making the object of the adjective refer to Christ’s body and blood, not to a symbol or other foreign element.

In fact the word used in the Gospel of Luke, which is quoted in Saint Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians uses a word unique from simply remembering a person. The difference is 2 Greeks words for memorial.

1/ μνημοσυνον (mnemosunon)- used usually for nonsacrifical memories

2/ αναμνησις (anamnesis)- used usually for sacrifical memorials, which were shown above “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event as in Hebrews 10:3 and Numbers 10:10

μνημοσυνον (mnemosunon) is used in the bible for non sacrifical memories…(in the New Testament)

Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” -John 6:54

τρωγων ( trwgwn or trogo)–meaning to eat or literally to “chew” or “munch” never used figuratively.

φαγη (fagh or phago)- is the word for eat or physically consume, but this is can be figurative. But mostly in the Bible it is literal such as Acts 23:12 “And when day was come, some of the Jews gathered together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying, that they would neither eat, nor drink, till they killed Paul.”

Link: freewebs.com/orthodoxcatholic/EucharistREAL.html

 

[NotWorthy]

No, I do not think the Catholic Church teaches that God dwells exclusively in their churches, nor do I think that the Bible is saying that God isn’t present in pagan temples, since he is, of course, present everywhere, I think it is saying that God is not specially present anywhere in particular. I don’t believe He is any more present in a consecrated host than he is anywhere else. The Catholic Church claims that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist, hence, Eucharistic Adoration, etc. However, the only meaning I can find for this verse, the one stated above, seems to contradict the idea that he is more present in the tabernacle than he is anywhere else.

Why, yes, She does. Christ says,
a) This is my Body.
b) This is my Blood.
c) Do this in memory of me. This translates better as “Offer this Sacrifice as a memorial offering” (make it present like the Jews do the Passover).

We’re only following His commands. The Apostles understood this command. They didn’t have to do mental and linguistic gymnastics to reinvent what Christ said. They learned at the feet fo the Master.

As for the fact God ordered a temple to be built by by Solomon to be dwelt in, the verses immediately preceding the one I gave seem to imply that God was never present there, “46David found favor in God’s sight, and asked that he might find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob.
47But it was Solomon who built a house for Him.
48However, the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands”
It seems to imply that God never dwelled there. Just like how the book of Hebrews says that animal sacrifices can’t really take away sins, that it was just prefiguring Christ’s sacrifice, I’m not sure if God really occupied that temple, especially given the above Bible verses. Though I am a novice Bible scholar at best, so feel free to correct me, but I don’t think God dwells in a consecrated host, or in a tabernacle. I don’t believe he dwells in any place especially, but is everywhere. Again, feel free to correct me.

If you read the Old Testament, you will find that God certainly did dwell in the Temple, at least until Jeremiah removed the Ark of the Covenant and hid it.

But yes, God does dwell everywhere. There is just a Sacramental presence in the Eucharist, as Jesus had commanded.

sinner06:

Also, the Catholic Church teaches that Christ Transubstantiated Himself at the last supper, correct? That the Last Supper was the first example of the Eucharist? Correct me if I’m wrong, because I often am.

Christ’s Last Supper offering looked forward to Calgary, whereas the Mass today looks backward to Calgary - in other words, it makes us present at Calgary.

So, yes, you are correct in your statement.

sinner06:

Because if they do, I’m afraid I don’t understand how Jesus could have been re-presenting a sacrifice that hadn’t happened yet? Wouldn’t that have made the whole thing meaningless? If they want to argue that the first Eucharist was some point after the Resurrection, that’s one thing, but the idea that the Last Supper was an example of the Eucharist seems flawed.

Why do you think this presents a problem. A God who can create something out of nothing can certainly bring his Sacrifice forward to Calgary.

Why do you feel that God couldn’t possibly do this?

 

[sinner06]

How many times does Christ have to repeat Himself???

It took the Jews at least 5 times to really understand He was not kidding…does Christ have to say it for a 6th time for Christians to believe in His word? How many more times must he says AMEN (truly, verily)???

The Greek word for amen is αμην and transliterated, “amhn.”

Compare the following verses of the Gospels where Jesus says ‘Amen’ when starting…how many of them are figurative?

Well for starters,
“Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.” - Matthew 5:26 is obviously figurative. Will you actually pay for your sins with pennies, or any kind of physical currency? Of course not, it’s a metaphor for a different kind of payment. So the argument that just because He said Amen, that means he’s speaking literally, doesn’t hold true, even for one of the examples you gave.

Why do you think this presents a problem. A God who can create something out of nothing can certainly bring his Sacrifice forward to Calgary.

Why do you feel that God couldn’t possibly do this?

I do not believe that God couldn’t possibly do this, He can of course do anything. The question is does He? If the Eucharist is such a “wonderful gift”, and time meant nothing to God, why did He not let Abraham, and Moses, and Elijah all enjoy the benefits of the Eucharist, since Christ’s sacrifice was not a necessary prerequisite?

Moreover, noone has pointed out to me what to make of the verse I gave, about God not dwelling in houses made of human hands. If the Bible wasn’t pointing out that God is equally present everywhere, not especially present in a special place, then what was he talking about? Why didn’t the man who was talkiing, (Stephen, I believe), say, " God is not present in your temples, but hey, come with me to Mass this Sunday, I’ll show you where He’s really present."? I think it’s because God is not especially present in a host, or in a Tabernacle. Please explain what you mean by a sacramental presence, as opposed to another kind of presence. If God is present everywhere, why would being in the presence of a host change anything?

 

[NotWorthy]

Well for starters,
“Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.” - Matthew 5:26 is obviously figurative. Will you actually pay for your sins with pennies, or any kind of physical currency? Of course not, it’s a metaphor for a different kind of payment. So the argument that just because He said Amen, that means he’s speaking literally, doesn’t hold true, even for one of the examples you gave.

The payment is literal - or the fact that payment is made is literal. The point that it is pennies is literal to the parable. The story is figurative, however, to teach a lesson. This lesson regards Purgatory, btw.

I do not believe that God couldn’t possibly do this, He can of course do anything. The question is does He? If the Eucharist is such a “wonderful gift”, and time meant nothing to God, why did He not let Abraham, and Moses, and Elijah all enjoy the benefits of the Eucharist, since Christ’s sacrifice was not a necessary prerequisite?

But Christ’s Sacrifice was necessary, where do you think I came up with that. The Last Supper points toward Calgary, so Calgary had to happen.

Regarding the gift of the Eucharist should have been offered to Abraham and Moses and such - I could counter that Christ should have been offered. I don’t understand your logic, here.

Moreover, noone has pointed out to me what to make of the verse I gave, about God not dwelling in houses made of human hands. If the Bible wasn’t pointing out that God is equally present everywhere, not especially present in a special place, then what was he talking about? Why didn’t the man who was talkiing, (Stephen, I believe), say, " God is not present in your temples, but hey, come with me to Mass this Sunday, I’ll show you where He’s really present."? I think it’s because God is not especially present in a host, or in a Tabernacle. Please explain what you mean by a sacramental presence, as opposed to another kind of presence. If God is present everywhere, why would being in the presence of a host change anything?

Let’s look at it this way.

Jesus says, “Where two or three are gathered in my name, then I am in their midst”.
Now, you already agree that Jesus is everywhere, right? But why does Jesus need to point out that He is in their midst if he’s not more present when they are gathered in his name.

 

[Church_Militant]

The verse isn’t just talking about the fact that God dwells in heaven, it specifically says he does NOT dwell in houses made with human hands. As far as I know, every Catholic church in the world has been built with human hands.

I think you err by not realizing that God dwells in Heaven, but He can and does choose to be in various places, and no one would contend that.

No, I do not think the Catholic Church teaches that God dwells exclusively in their churches, nor do I think that the Bible is saying that God isn’t present in pagan temples, since he is, of course, present everywhere, I think it is saying that God is not specially present anywhere in particular

So then God was not specially present in the burning bush? In the apostles on the day of Pentecost? Anywhere where even 2 or 3 of us gather in His name?

Exodus 19:18? 2nd Chronicles 7:1-2 ff?

It seems obvious that the interpretation that you hold so strictly to is not supported by scripture, nor is that the point of this discussion thread.

This is about the fact that the New Testament teaches the Eucharistic Real Presence of Jesus. It shows that much of modern n-C theology has departed from the New Testament and the verifiable writings of the early church. A departure that cannot be justified.

I don’t believe He is any more present in a consecrated host than he is anywhere else. The Catholic Church claims that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist, hence, Eucharistic Adoration, etc. However, the only meaning I can find for this verse, the one stated above, seems to contradict the idea that he is more present in the tabernacle than he is anywhere else.

Then according to the New Testament and the writings of the early church you are wrong. It would be best if you abandoned the errant teachings of modern men and returned to what the New Testament specifically teaches in 1st Corinthians 11:23-30. One could not become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (as St. Paul plainly teaches) if it were not really present in the accidents of the bread and wine.

As for the fact God ordered a temple to be built by by Solomon to be dwelt in, the verses immediately preceding the one I gave seem to imply that God was never present there, “46David found favor in God’s sight, and asked that he might find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob.
47But it was Solomon who built a house for Him.
48However, the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands”
It seems to imply that God never dwelled there.

That’s not what the Bible teaches as I have cited above…but let’s remain focused on what we are talking about. Communion.

Just like how the book of Hebrews says that animal sacrifices can’t really take away sins, that it was just prefiguring Christ’s sacrifice, I’m not sure if God really occupied that temple, especially given the above Bible verses. Though I am a novice Bible scholar at best, so feel free to correct me, but I don’t think God dwells in a consecrated host

, or in a tabernacle. I don’t believe he dwells in any place especially, but is everywhere. Again, feel free to correct me.So you disagree with Our Lord in the Gospels and St. Paul in his epistles? Just because some modern man has taught you this interpretation…that grossly contradicts both the scriptures and writings of the early church, you will accept their teaching over that of the New Testamet and guys liek St. Ignatius of Antioch who was discipled by the apostle St. John? Think about it S06, who’s closer to the source?

Also, the Catholic Church teaches that Christ Transubstantiated Himself at the last supper, correct? That the Last Supper was the first example of the Eucharist? Correct me if I’m wrong, because I often am.

Yes that is correct.

Because if they do, I’m afraid I don’t understand how Jesus could have been re-presenting a sacrifice that hadn’t happened yet? Wouldn’t that have made the whole thing meaningless? If they want to argue that the first Eucharist was some point after the Resurrection, that’s one thing, but the idea that the Last Supper was an example of the Eucharist seems flawed.

The only flaw is in your argument. Was there no bread and fish that fed the multitudes in two different Gospel occasions? Impossible right?

Our Lord was not re-presenting His sacrifice. He miraculously Transubstantiated Himself at that time and made the bread and wine into His body and blood at that Passover meal. The sacrifical Passover lamb is eaten even to this day and what was the clear Testimony of John the Baptist when he saw Our Lord? “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29 & 36) It is right in line with the fullfillment of Passover.

Well for starters,
“Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.” - Matthew 5:26 is obviously figurative. …

This is not relevant to the Euchistic discussion at hand…please stay on topic.

I do not believe that God couldn’t possibly do this, He can of course do anything. The question is does He? If the Eucharist is such a “wonderful gift”, and time meant nothing to God, why did He not let Abraham, and Moses, and Elijah all enjoy the benefits of the Eucharist, since Christ’s sacrifice was not a necessary prerequisite?

Actually He did. In every sacrifice that they made which prefigured the one to come.