The Real Presence

[PRmerger]

The first century Jews (as evidenced in the gospels) would have believed in demon possession. As such, simply b/c a human body was detected by their senses, standing in front of them, the Jews would not say that the presence of the human body precluded the presence of a supernatural entity being in front of them too.

Don’t read too much into the fact that I used 1st century Jews in my example.

The example could be quite dextrously applied to modern atheists.

They may crow, “Look at what we found under the microscope when we examined a piece of your alleged savior’s heart tissue: human cardiac muscle! How can you say he is divine when the evidence is right here under the microscope: it’s just human heart tissue!”

And you, as an objector to the RP of Christ in the Eucharist, because it doesn’t look magical or uncorporeal or however you imagine it should look like, cannot argue with these atheists.

 

[PRmerger]

let’s simplify this for you:

This comment is unnecessary.

I have noticed in your postings that the degree that you feel inferior in your arguments is the degree to which you feel compelled to insult the intelligence of others.

Let your arguments (or lack thereof) stand in their own merits. Lurkers will be more likely to consider your position. Right now, what they may see is your squirming at the logic and reason that has been presented to you by knowledgeable Catholics.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Vanity if Vanities said the Preacher all in life is Vanity.

GIVE US OUR DAILY BREAD! And forgive us Our Trespasses.

Humm, I wonder what this means?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Maybe the rest of us mere mortals also missed the “correct” meaning of the Our Father?

Benedict XVI was just speaking on this today, and he wrote about in Jesus of Narareth pt-1 in detail if my “long term” memory isn’t failing me?

Peace

 

[CopticChristian]

The first century Jews (as evidenced in the gospels) would have **believed **in demon possession. As such, simply b/c a human body was detected by their senses, standing in front of them, the Jews would not say that the presence of the human body precluded the presence of a supernatural entity being in front of them too.

let’s simplify this for you: Example A…There is a thing in front of you. If it is a choice between it being bread or a human body and it has the** weight of bread, the feel of bread, the appearance of bread etc. and does not have the weight** of a body, the feel of a body , the appearance of a body, then it is bread.

Example B…There is a thing in front of you. If it is a choice between it being a human (and nothing else) or a human possessed of a supernatural nature, and it has the **weight **of human body, the feel of human body, the **appearance **of human body etc. then you don’t have enough information to make the choice, b/c the presence of a human body does not preclude the presence of a supernatural being with the human body…so you look further. If, after some time, the thing doesn’t do anything requiring supernatural abilities, you can conclude it is merely human. On the other hand, if after some time, the thing does stuff that could only be explained by it using supernatural powers, then you can conclude it is more than just human

transubstantiation claims that the presence of the body precludes the presence of the bread…does any one say that the presence of a human body precludes the presence of the supernatural

**only if you are very limited in your abilities…**and those are the people that you don’t want to have defending the incarnation (on your behalf) any how.

I have a book. This book is said to be the word of God by some. The book has the appearance of a book, the feel of a book, the weight of a book and by opinion it may or may not be the Word of God. One can conclude by holding the book because of our limited abilities that is is just a book. I may choose to look further beyond my abililty to see, hear, touch, ponder and conclude differently.

You are a victim of your created reason. If you open the book there is nowhere you can find that the entire composition is the word of God and yet you believe it. When you read John 6, believing that the Bible is the word of God you refuse to believe it based on your reason and limited abilities. The evidence of the Gospel is that the bread of life is not symbolic and you deny it.

Was Zwinglian thought like this when you studied Zwingli?

 

[jediliz]

ewtn.com/library/mary/tarcis.htm

ST. TARCISIUS

This young boy was attacked by non believers when he was carrying the “Christian Mysteries”. He was trying to bring the “Mysteries” to Christians condemned to die during the Persecution years. These “Mysteries” is what Catholics know as the Holy Eucharist. NOT SYMBOLIC!

In the fourth century, Pope St. Damasus wrote a poem about this “boy-martyr of the Eucharist” and says that, like another St. Stephen, he suffered a violent death at the hands of a mob rather than give up the Sacred Body to “raging dogs.” His story became well known when Cardinal Wiseman made it a part of his novel Fabiola, in which the story of the young acolyte is dramatized and a very moving account given of his martyrdom and death.

Its obvious the Early Christians believed in the REAL PRESENCE.

 

[CopticChristian]

ewtn.com/library/mary/tarcis.htm

ST. TARCISIUS

This young boy was attacked by non believers when he was carrying the “Christian Mysteries”. He was trying to bring the “Mysteries” to Christians condemned to die during the Persecution years. These “Mysteries” is what Catholics know as the Holy Eucharist. NOT SYMBOLIC!

In the fourth century, Pope St. Damasus wrote a poem about this “boy-martyr of the Eucharist” and says that, like another St. Stephen, he suffered a violent death at the hands of a mob rather than give up the Sacred Body to “raging dogs.” His story became well known when Cardinal Wiseman made it a part of his novel Fabiola, in which the story of the young acolyte is dramatized and a very moving account given of his martyrdom and death.

Its obvious the Early Christians believed in the REAL PRESENCE.

I wonder if Zwingli knew about this?

 

[Radical]

Hi Radical,

hello

There is no need to go into the details of everything. I am basing my conclusion based on what you claimed. You claim that since the bread can be sensed as bread by touching it and eating it then it can not be anything else except for bread.

well let’s simplify it then: if it is a choice between it being bread or a human body and it has the weight of bread, the feel of bread, the appearance of bread etc. and does not have the weight of a body, the feel of a body , the appearance of a body, then it is bread…see my post to PRmerger above

You are going into details about the miracles Jesus did and what He claimed. You say that Jesus claimed to be God and backed it up with the miracles that He did. Well, this same Jesus who performed all these miracles also took bread and claimed it to be His Body.

that would be, made it a symbol of his body

The second sentence said: God is not supposed to be touched as physical matter is and yet Jesus (who is God) had flesh and can be touched.
You are saying that, that is an assumption? What do you mean by that?

If I understand them correctly, folks like Mormons would say that God can be touched as physical matter. Also, when Thomas touched Jesus, I wouldn’t say that Thomas was touching the divine nature any more so than I would say that you could touch my soul by touching my arm.

The fact that Thomas touched the FLESH of Christ and came to the conclusion that He is seeing God in front of Him proves my point more than it does yours. It proves that, just because His senses say that He is touching human flesh, doesn’t mean that Jesus is merely a human flesh.

agreed…but this is different than your Eucharist. Thomas touched something that felt like flesh and he was right in concluding it was flesh. You touch something that feels like bread, but in contrast to Thomas, you don’t conclude that it is what you sense. You declare that the bread is not present.

So J Dunn says so, so the case is closed? Who is this J Dunn fellow? The Early Church Fathers saw it as Eucharistic. Augustine sure saw it as Eucharistic. Do you have any quotes from any Early Church Father who believed it was merely a “traveller’s fellowship meal (not a Lord’s Supper)”?

J Dunn is James D. G. Dunn…a heavyweight. I haven’t checked out the ECFs on this point, b/c I don’t think that they are any better positioned to know. Your two best texts from Augustine that you would hope to use to prove a RBP are the result of him misunderstanding scripture (the “footstool” and “carried in his own hands”).

I find this part to be extremely ironic. This is a fellowship meal that Christ would have likely shared with those two disciples on many occasions? Radical, you ask for proof for the Eucharist and expect it to turn into flesh so that you can have proof and you go and make a claim like that. Likely shared on many occasions? Show me where it even happens ONCE in Scripture prior to Luke 24. Where do you get this historical claim? Prove it.

what exactly do you think happened? Jesus travels around with his disciples, but at the end of the day they all go their separate ways to eat? In that culture they would have had fellowship meals. If you really want to track down the references to Jesus eating with his diciples, then start at Matt 9:10 and read on from there. For procedure, look at the feeding of the five thousand and four thousand. Each time it is described that Jesus gave thanks and took the bread and broke it. That was a common action at meals.

 

[Radical]

I will go through a commentary of the story to show why I believe it is not merely a traveller’s meal but also a Eucharistic meal (it could be both but you have to prove your point before I even consider it). I will now begin the commentary:

[13] That very day two of them were going to a village named Emma’us, about seven miles from Jerusalem,
That is extremely important.

not really, it was the same day as the resurrection, that was the point…IMHO you read way too much into most passages that you look at on these threads and in your blog.

What is the first day of the week? It is Sunday. When did the Early Christians celebrate the Eucharist?

it is possible that it started out as an annual thing…like the Passover that it started from

At the Last Supper, they were at table. At the Last Supper, Jesus takes BREAD and He BLESSES it, BREAKS it, and gives the bread to them. The Language of the Last Supper seems to come alive here in this story with the two disciples.

comes alive? b/c table, bread and breaking are common to the two passages? Please, they were travelling. They stopped at the end of the day and did what any traveller would normally do. They ate and speciifcally they ate bread which would have been the normal meal for travellers. Jesus blessed and broke the bread as was his normal practice at meals. You need wine (which wouldn’t have been usual for a traveller’s meal) and words of institution…then you could claim that it was the Lord’s Supper.

The question isn’t: How would Radical and Lyrikal see this text in 2011? The question is: How would the Early Christians see this text when it was written around 70 AD?

right…and so it is also not what the ECFs thought it meant…and it also isn’t an exercise in finding out how we can possibly read into the text that which isn’t there.

This same Luke tells us in Acts that the Apostles devoted themselves to prayer and the breaking of the bread. They would celebrate the Eucharist DAILY (Acts 2:46).

Acts 2:42/46 is another description of fellowship meals…no mention of wine, no mention of doing it in remembrance of Christ’s crucifixion and you still jump to the conclusion that it is a description of a Eucharist…

So they would hear “Christ Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them…” on a daily basis. So when reading the story of On the Road to Emmaus, their minds wouldn’t go to a “Oh this is obviously a traveller’s meal that Jesus is having with these two disciples” mode. We would expect their minds to go to a Eucharistic understanding based on the historical context of the time. What did Luke call the Eucharistic meal? He called it the Breaking of the Bread (in the book of Acts multiple times).

well, I find Luke referencing breaking bread 3 times in Acts. In Acts 27 Paul gives thanks, breaks bread and begins to eat with some Pagans…doesn’t sound like a Eucharist to me. In Acts 20 and Acts 2, w/o the mention of wine or words of institution, these are best understood to be fellowship meals.

The very fact that Jesus BROKE the BREAD should give you a big hint as to kind of meal this is.

you mean like, we should assume that there weren’t just two disciples, but that he was feeding two thousand that day?

 

[Radical]

[31] And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight.
Here is something even more interesting. Their eyes were opened and they recognized Him. Now the question is, why did Jesus vanish out of their sight at that moment? It is because they now have His presence in the Eucharist.

totally your assumption

He wanted them to get used to the fact that He is going to be present with them in THAT way (the Eucharistic way). Why else would He vanish AT THAT TIME? That seems pretty odd to me. Don’t you see that as odd as well?

no…what I find odd is how you are prepared to read between the lines at the drop of a hat…as if the gospels are written in code that needs deciphering

So WHY were the two disciples’ eyes opened? Because they ATE of the FRUIT (Jesus) that hung from the Tree of Life (Cross) and their EYES WERE OPENED to recognizing Jesus the same way the two characters of Adam and Eve’s eyes were opened because they ATE of the FRUIT that hung from the TREE (of knowledge and of good and evil).

this is the sort of stuff that makes a fellow want to pull his hair out…you find a common phrase or two, declare the passages to be parallels and then build whatever theological conclusion that suits your purposes. I realize that you believe that your analysis is sound, but please understand that from over here, you analysis appears to be so subjective and so self-serving that it only produces an “are you kidding me?” response.

Verse 35 pretty much destroys your whole “traveller’s meal…” argument. Notice the last 4 words: BREAKING OF THE BREAD. What does Luke call the Eucharistic meal?

he doesn’t give a name to it…he describes the last supper as including wine, bread and words of institution…do you really think Acts 27 describes a Eucharist?

What does St. Paul call it?
[16] The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

let me see, I guess he would call it the bread which is broken in conjunction with the cup of thanksgiving…where’s the mention of the cup in all those passages from Luke that you think describe a Eucharist?

Or is that what they called a “Traveller’s meal?” Show me where the Bible says that there is a Traveller’s meal called the Breaking of the Bread. Come on, Radical. What do you think the Early Christians reading this Gospel would think when they read the words “Breaking of the Bread”? A Traveller’s meal? I always hear Protestants saying “Let’s let Scripture interpret Scripture…” Well, then let’s do that.

fine, start with Acts 27…was it a Eucharist that included non-believers or was it that “breaking bread” doesn’t = Eucharist? BTW the idea is to let clearer Scripture interpret the less clear Scripture. It isn’t reading into scripture whatever we can squeeze between the lines.

The matter does not need to be complicated. I sense flesh, and therefore it is a human. So if a divine presence cannot be determined by what we sense, then how did St. Thomas sense that He was touching his Lord and his God?

b/c the presence of a living body told Thomas that Jesus has risen from the dead…and victory over death was something God controlled.

Based on the claims of Jesus and how He backed up what He claimed, correct? Well that same Jesus who made such a claim also claimed that bread was His Body.

yep, same as he claimed that a person who did God’s will was really his mother, his brother and his sister…

And who claims that Three can equal One? Besides all of us Christians that is, for this one thing (the Trinity)…And the Trinity jives with standard mathematical usage or even word usage? 3 equals 1?.. Really?..And that 3 actually equals 1 is to abuse the Mathematical language.

According to mathematics, one infinite set plus one infinite set plus one infinite set = one infinite set.

You will believe the Catholic Eucharistic philosophy was Greekish. Why? Because you disagree with that doctrine and therefore will believe it.

where do you think that this “accidents” and “substance” stuff came from if not Greek Philosophy?

I used an analogy. You are not supposed to take analogies to be literal. But since you did, I will go ahead and humor you. Do I SEE a broken clock? Yes, I do. Is it a BROKEN CLOCK to me? No, it is a paper holder. What I see, what I touch, what I sense, tells me it is a broken clock. What it REALLY is for ME is a paper holder.

right, and what has changed is merely your attitude towards the clock.

That’s not what is baffling the Scientists, Radical. I would have thought you had looked into the study that has been done before commenting on it. The one that has been studied is the Miracle of Lanciano which happened in 8th Century AD.

…and what is presented as substantiating the miracle is pitiful. I’ll go into a detailed explanation of that remark, but this thread could be closed by then, so I’ll put it on another thread where that miracle has been cited or start a thread for it.

 

[PRmerger]

hello
well let’s simplify it then: if it is a choice between it being bread or a human body and it has the weight of bread, the feel of bread, the appearance of bread etc. and does not have the weight of a body, the feel of a body , the appearance of a body, then it is bread…see my post to PRmerger above

What would it have to look like, in your opinion, if it were to be the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

 

[Defender1]

The first century Jews (as evidenced in the gospels) would have believed in demon possession. As such, simply b/c a human body was detected by their senses, standing in front of them, the Jews would not say that the presence of the human body precluded the presence of a supernatural entity being in front of them too.

let’s simplify this for you: Example A…There is a thing in front of you. If it is a choice between it being bread or a human body and it has the weight of bread, the feel of bread, the appearance of bread etc. and does not have the weight of a body, the feel of a body , the appearance of a body, then it is bread.

Example B…There is a thing in front of you. If it is a choice between it being a human (and nothing else) or a human possessed of a supernatural nature, and it has the weight of human body, the feel of human body, the appearance of human body etc. then you don’t have enough information to make the choice, b/c the presence of a human body does not preclude the presence of a supernatural being with the human body…so you look further. If, after some time, the thing doesn’t do anything requiring supernatural abilities, you can conclude it is merely human. On the other hand, if after some time, the thing does stuff that could only be explained by it using supernatural powers, then you can conclude it is more than just human

transubstantiation claims that the presence of the body precludes the presence of the bread…does any one say that the presence of a human body precludes the presence of the supernatural

only if you are very limited in your abilities…and those are the people that you don’t want to have defending the incarnation (on your behalf) any how.

Lets keep in mind that NT was written in Greek and in Greek the word for to eat is Phagon in John chapter 6 the word phagon “To eat” is substituted with Trogon "TO MUNCH and NAW " now this was obviously to put greater emphasis on actual eating and this should also put the symbolic claim to sleep . No matter how one slices it there would be no reason for the word change unless for greater emphasis and seems to be the case here . If you would please give me a direct response to this comment .

 

[benedictus2]

This segues nicely with a point I always love to make in providing* apologia* for the RP.

The above argument may have been made by Jews in ancient Israel regarding the divinity of Christ. They would say, “He looks like a human, has weight like a human, has features of a human (you know, like arms, legs, head, torso, etc), can be touched, etc, is covered in skin with some hair etc…He is therefore human and NOT DIVINE.”

If these Jews had demanded a piece of the flesh of Christ and examined it, they would have found only this:

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/anatomy/brightfieldgallery/images/mammalcardiacmusclesmall.jpg

Yet, of course, Christians who deny the RP because it “looks like merely bread” cannot deny the divinity of Christ who “looks like merely a human”.

See what happens if you deny the RP in the Eucharist? You end up not being able to defend the Incarnation.

Brilliant PR. Simply Brilliant!!!:bowdown::clapping:

 

[benedictus2]

What would it have to look like, in your opinion, if it were to be the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

Excellent question.

And I also wonder, if Christ instead came in human form at each consecration and commanded them to “eat my flesh, drink my blood” if there would have been anyone left in the Church and if anyone would have dared venture back.

“What our senses fail to fathom let us grasp through faith’s consent”.

 

[lyrikal]

hello

Hello

well let’s simplify it then: if it is a choice between it being bread or a human body and it has the weight of bread, the feel of bread, the appearance of bread etc. and does not have the weight of a body, the feel of a body , the appearance of a body, then it is bread…see my post to PRmerger above

Good, I’m glad you’re starting to understand what we’re trying to say. So then we can follow with: If it feels like a human, weighs like a human, has the appearance of a human, etc. then we can conclude that it is a human. Therefore, we fall into a trap of thinking Jesus is merely a human based on appearance.

Someone used the example of the Bible which I believe is a great example as well. It looks like a book, feels like a book, has words, pages, etc…but is it just merely a book? No, it is the WORD OF GOD.

I keep noting your double standards during this whole thread. This is a perfect example of it.

that would be, made it a symbol of his body

…says Radical…But the passage no where mentions the word “symbol”. I’ll go with Jesus on this. You are more than welcomed to blame me for picking Jesus’ words over yours.

If I understand them correctly, folks like Mormons would say that God can be touched as physical matter. Also, when Thomas touched Jesus, I wouldn’t say that Thomas was touching the divine nature any more so than I would say that you could touch my soul by touching my arm.

I think we are misunderstanding each other as to what is being discussed here. I’ll just drop this because what you stated above is something I agree with. So I’m not sure what the issue is anymore.

agreed…but this is different than your Eucharist. Thomas touched something that felt like flesh and he was right in concluding it was flesh. You touch something that feels like bread, but in contrast to Thomas, you don’t conclude that it is what you sense. You declare that the bread is not present.

Thomas concluded that it was flesh? Really? I recall him concluding that he just touched “My Lord and my God…” Although he touched flesh, he concluded that it was more than just merely flesh.

J Dunn is James D. G. Dunn…a heavyweight. I haven’t checked out the ECFs on this point, b/c I don’t think that they are any better positioned to know. Your two best texts from Augustine that you would hope to use to prove a RBP are the result of him misunderstanding scripture (the “footstool” and “carried in his own hands”)

A heavyweight in your opinion. My opinion is that the Catholic Bishops in the Early Church (Church Fathers) are the heavyweights.

Augustine was working with a bad translation not a misunderstanding of Scripture. Assuming that you’re right about him misunderstanding Scripture in those occasions, does that mean that we are to throw his works away because of the two mistakes? Do you believe Dunn is infallible? Do you agree with every single thing Dunn says? If not, are you to throw away all of his work? Why would you choose Dunn’s view on Luke 24 over Augustine when both of them have made mistakes in their works I’m sure.

what exactly do you think happened? Jesus travels around with his disciples, but at the end of the day they all go their separate ways to eat? In that culture they would have had fellowship meals. If you really want to track down the references to Jesus eating with his diciples, then start at Matt 9:10 and read on from there. For procedure, look at the feeding of the five thousand and four thousand. Each time it is described that Jesus gave thanks and took the bread and broke it. That was a common action at meals.

Right. Because that was a Jewish action that happened prior to Jesus giving us such a formula of thanksgiving. The Early Church Fathers saw the feeding of the four and five thousand as a foreshadow of the Eucharist. I think I’ll go with the early Catholic Bishops on this over yours (with all due respect).

Matthew 9:10 proves nothing.

 

[lyrikal]

not really, it was the same day as the resurrection, that was the point…IMHO you read way too much into most passages that you look at on these threads and in your blog.

I’m glad it is only your opinion. And in my opinion you do the same thing but you don’t realize it. I don’t see the words “Traveller’s Fellowship Meal” anywhere in the text. Neither do I see the word “symbol” in the account of the Last Supper.

it is possible that it started out as an annual thing…like the Passover that it started from

Assuming your possibility, when do you think it happened once a year? Easter Sunday? If so, please see above as to when the story happened.

comes alive? b/c table, bread and breaking are common to the two passages? Please, they were travelling. They stopped at the end of the day and did what any traveller would normally do. They ate and speciifcally they ate bread which would have been the normal meal for travellers. Jesus blessed and broke the bread as was his normal practice at meals. You need wine (which wouldn’t have been usual for a traveller’s meal) and words of institution…then you could claim that it was the Lord’s Supper.

And you see a road, people traveling, and a meal and conclude that it is a traveller’s meal when the text no where says so. Welcome to the same club that you accuse me of being a part of.

right…and so it is also not what the ECFs thought it meant…

And neither what Dunn thought it meant…

and it also isn’t an exercise in finding out how we can possibly read into the text that which isn’t there.

You mean like the words “Traveller’s Meal”?

Acts 2:42/46 is another description of fellowship meals…

The Eucharist IS a fellowship meal (See 1 Corinthians 10 and 11).

no mention of wine, no mention of doing it in remembrance of Christ’s crucifixion and you still jump to the conclusion that it is a description of a Eucharist…

Do they go into details as to what type of prayers? Do they go into detail as to what the Apostle’s teachings are? Do they go into detail as to what Fellowship is? No. But we can “read between the lines” and assume what these things are in more detail than how they are described. Just because it doesn’t say “Breaking of bread and drinking of the cup…” doesn’t mean that it isn’t a Eucharistic meal. The Bible was never meant to give us every little detail since the Word was being passed down orally as well and so the author would expect you to put 2 and 2 together.

well, I find Luke referencing breaking bread 3 times in Acts. In Acts 27 Paul gives thanks, breaks bread and begins to eat with some Pagans…doesn’t sound like a Eucharist to me. In Acts 20 and Acts 2, w/o the mention of wine or words of institution, these are best understood to be fellowship meals.

Again, the formula used as far as breaking, thanking, etc. is a Jewish thing prior to Jesus. I am NOT using those words to PROVE the words are in reference to the Eucharist. It is all about context. If this bread that is being broken, blessed, and thanked for, makes two people recognize Jesus, then it is more than just natural bread. It would seem to me that it is supernatural bread. If so, then I can rightly conclude in context that it is not just a traveller’s meal, but it is a Eucharistic celebration on EASTER SUNDAY.

you mean like, we should assume that there weren’t just two disciples, but that he was feeding two thousand that day?

See above.

 

[PRmerger]

Brilliant PR. Simply Brilliant!!!:bowdown::clapping:

Aw, shucks! :blushing:

 

[lyrikal]

totally your assumption

The same way the “Traveller’s meal” is totally your assumption? I did not see you counter with any reasonable response. Your response can be summed up as “Nope.” Why did they recognize Him in the breaking of the bread?

no…what I find odd is how you are prepared to read between the lines at the drop of a hat…as if the gospels are written in code that needs deciphering

Again, kind of like your “Traveller’s meal” interpretation is a “reading between the lines at the drop of a hat.” Those words never appear in the text but yet you have taken the traveling and the eating as codes and deciphered it as merely a “Traveller’s meal”.

this is the sort of stuff that makes a fellow want to pull his hair out…you find a common phrase or two, declare the passages to be parallels and then build whatever theological conclusion that suits your purposes. I realize that you believe that your analysis is sound, but please understand that from over here, you analysis appears to be so subjective and so self-serving that it only produces an “are you kidding me?” response.

All I see here is finger pointing. I would like to see your viewpoint on it and not just an accusation of my viewpoint. By the way, my viewpoint is something I got from a Dr. of Biblical Scholarship and an emphasis on Judaic historical context. I guess we both have our “heavyweights.”

I do understand your “are you kidding me?” response because that’s the reaction I gave to your “Traveller’s Meal” interpretation of Luke 24.

he doesn’t give a name to it…he describes the last supper as including wine, bread and words of institution…do you really think Acts 27 describes a Eucharist?

No. But Acts 27 doesn’t imply the bread is supernatural and that it opens eyes. There is obviously different going on. The feeding of the thousands is supernatural because it foreshadows a supernatural bread (the Eucharist). Please see the Early Church Fathers on this. Or do they not matter when they disagree with you?

let me see, I guess he would call it the bread which is broken in conjunction with the cup of thanksgiving…where’s the mention of the cup in all those passages from Luke that you think describe a Eucharist?

See above. There does not need to be a mention of a cup. You assume everything has to be in the Bible. We both know things were passed down orally and so Luke can rightly assume “breaking of bread” included a cup as well. We do the same thing today, do we not? When I talk about the Eucharist to someone, I don’t always say “The Body and Blood of Christ” or “The breaking of the bread and the cup that we bless…” I just merely say “The Body of Christ is…” or “I can’t wait to go to mass so I can receive the Body of Christ!” I assume the listener knows that I mean “Body AND Blood of Christ”.

fine, start with Acts 27…was it a Eucharist that included non-believers or was it that “breaking bread” doesn’t = Eucharist?

I will do the same thing you do and say: I do not see Acts 27 calling the meal a “Breaking of Bread” so therefore it is a different type of meal.

BTW the idea is to let clearer Scripture interpret the less clear Scripture. It isn’t reading into scripture whatever we can squeeze between the lines.

So let’s not squeeze merely a “Traveller’s meal” between the lines and ignore that they recognized Jesus in the breaking of the bread.

b/c the presence of a living body told Thomas that Jesus has risen from the dead…and victory over death was something God controlled.

And Thomas could have easily concluded “God raised you up!”

Didn’t Elijah raise someone up from the dead? Didn’t the Apostles pray over someone in the book of Acts and raised him up from the dead? Would you conclude that they are God because they can control the victory over death? What about those who rose from the grave after Jesus resurrected? Are we to conclude that they are God because they were raised from the dead? There is more to it than just rising from the dead.

yep, same as he claimed that a person who did God’s will was really his mother, his brother and his sister…

Yup and I assume you take it that Jesus had brothers and sisters? So you take one text that says “Brothers of Jesus” to be literal and one text that says “if we do the will of God then we are His brothers and sisters and mother” to be symbolic. I guess it all depends on the context, doesn’t it? The context in the Last Supper is the Passover and since the sacrifice wasn’t completed until the eating of the Lamb then we can conclude that we must also eat the Lamb as well.

According to mathematics, one infinite set plus one infinite set plus one infinite set = one infinite set.

You are dodging again. You know EXACTLY what I mean, Radical yet you dodge the fact that the Trinity means the Father (1) + the Son (1) + the Holy Spirit (1) = 1 God. It goes against logic and basic 1st grade math. Yet we both believe it because it is a mystery and we take it by faith. We cannot prove the Trinity.

where do you think that this “accidents” and “substance” stuff came from if not Greek Philosophy?

And one can say “where do you think this God incarnation idea comes from if not Greek Philosophy?”

 

[PRmerger]

Thomas concluded that it was flesh? Really? I recall him concluding that he just touched “My Lord and my God…” Although he touched flesh, he concluded that it was more than just merely flesh.

'zactly right!!

So even though our Lord looked like merely a man, and to any atheistic or pagan Roman Christ would have appeared to be merely human flesh, he was Divine. And Thomas acknowledged so when he proclaimed, “My Lord and my God!”

 

[lyrikal]

right, and what has changed is merely your attitude towards the clock.

Which is something I take by faith. Which is what the Eucharist is about. FAITH. I find this extremely ironic that a Christian wants proof of a dogma that requires faith. You think you have proof of every single dogma that you have? You don’t take any of them by faith? Have you ever seen Jesus resurrect or ascend into Heaven? Have you ever seen Him heal a leper? You have only read about it, right? You can conclude that the evidence points to the fact that these things happened. But do you have absolute proof? No. Absolute proof is seeing it happen with your own eyes.

Can you blame an atheist who would tell you “If Jesus had a body, then I can only conclude that he was nothing more than a good teacher and a human, not God.”? He requires proof just like you do. What if an atheist thinks faith is all bogus and requires proof of anything that you believe in? Wouldn’t you go beyond the physical (flesh) to prove that Jesus is God or to prove whatever it is that the atheist may have a problem with? It is such a double standard on your part, as a Christian, to ask for proof of something that requires faith. That is just so ironic to me! “WE LIVE BY FAITH, NOT BY SIGHT.” –St. Paul. And yet you want us to LIVE BY SIGHT AND NOT BY FAITH when it comes to the Eucharist.

Good luck convincing any of us that it SHOULD look like a body and it SHOULD look like blood for it to be the Body and Blood of Christ. You keep running into a wall and I am so surprised that someone as intelligent as you would use such an argument that has obvious fallacies to it coming from a Christian who doesn’t have proof of everything he believes in. This is not one of your best arguments I’ve seen from you at all…

…and what is presented as substantiating the miracle is pitiful. I’ll go into a detailed explanation of that remark, but this thread could be closed by then, so I’ll put it on another thread where that miracle has been cited or start a thread for it.

I can’t wait to see this. You do realize that science is puzzled at such miracles and can’t explain them. You do realize that what you will come up with has probably already been thought of by these Scientists who know more about science than you and me do. Perhaps you can write a book refuting all these scientific findings. I find it funny that you think it is really that easy and “pitiful” that you can refute it with no problems. Good luck, Radical.

And I am still waiting for you to reply to this:

Sorry, Radical, you must provide a solution. Here is what is being claimed by us Catholics:

1.) The bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of Christ
2.) The appearance is still bread and wine but it is no longer bread and wine but it is now Body and Blood of Christ.

Here is what you want to happen in order for you to believe it:

1.) The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.
2.) The appearance of bread and wine are no longer there but now it must be actual flesh and actual blood.

Here is what your claim would suggest:

1.) That we would eat actual raw flesh and drink actual blood (that can’t be healthy…)
2.) Faith would no longer be necessary since we now have proof of everything. If the bread and wine turned into actual flesh and blood in every Catholic Mass, then there would no longer be a necessity for faith for we would have proof. We would then live by sight and not by faith…

My original question was: How could Jesus convince you that it is His flesh and His blood without taking faith away from it? Go ahead, give it a thought and pose a solution. Here is what you need to come up with:

1.) The bread and wine become actual flesh and actual blood
2.) Faith is still necessary and has to be there. There cannot be a proof of this miracle for us to see (since faith is a big part of Christianity, we can’t just throw it away).

Please try again and pose a solution for Jesus. How else could it have been done? IF, IF, IF (big IF), IF Jesus’ intention was to have us eat His body and drink His blood, do you think he would have given us actual flesh and blood to consume? If not, then how ELSE could He have done it?

God bless you.