The Real Presence

[The_GreyPilgrim]

No evidence for RP in ECF"s was given before 130 AD,except perhaps Ignatius ,which was easily contested but thanks (that I recall ,after almost1000 threads)

This statement I find to be disengenuous and intellectually dishonest. You’re appealing to the “argument from silence” fallacy again.

And when shown that your fallacy doesn’t even work you insist that Ignatius’s words are ambiguous. It’s circular logic, your’e assuming that which you’re trying to prove.

 

[david_ruiz]

Origen (AD 200), stated, “It should be observed that the collective books, as handed down by the Hebrews, are twenty-two, according to the number of letters in their alphabet. These twenty-two books, according to the Hebrews, are as follows …” and he then lists the books as we know them from the Hebrew Bible. He did know about the Apocrypha because he said, “Separate from these are the Maccabees.” [Bibliotheca Sacra, p. 296] Josephus, Melito (170), Anthanisius (330), Epiphaneus(360) Dead sea scrolls state apocryphal as separate from the “22” books of OT-not divine. It is clear consensus ,the Jews had their books properly discerned(some books were combined and counted as one)…Vatican 1 said the Church holds the books of Scripture as sacred and canonical ,NOT BECAUSE SHE APPROVED THEM, but because they are inspired by the Holy Spirit and God is the author and handed them to the church. Is this accurate ?. I like that decree. It seems less divisive .

 

[PRmerger]

Vatican 1 said the Church holds the books of Scripture as sacred and canonical ,NOT BECAUSE SHE APPROVED THEM, but because they are inspired by the Holy Spirit and God is the author and handed them to the church. Is this accurate ?. I like that decree. It seems less divisive .

It is indeed accurate, and very Catholic!

 

[david_ruiz]

You’re appealing to the “argument from silence” fallacy again.

 

[david_ruiz]

It is indeed accurate, and very Catholic!

Cool. Thanks

 

[david_ruiz]

How many of those threads were posted by those that believe in the Real Presence?

Don’t know ,half ?

 

[david_ruiz]

Begging the question. There is no way that you know everything which the Apostles said, much less know enough to make such a statement

 

[david_ruiz]

.

and that is the Catholic Church…that you unwittingly follow for having made the declaration about the canon of the Bible.

Vatican 1 says we follow Scripture because it is inspired ,God being the author ,and given to us, the Church.

I do not know if they are errors.

I was talking of error of thinking Luther was only human to preface biblical books with opinion .You don’t know if any Catholics (eg Jerome) prefaced biblical books with opinion ?

From AD 397 to the 1500s, can you cite any Catholic dissenting on the list of books in the Bible?

Gregory Nazianzen (AD 390) set the books of the Bible in a poem. He gave the standard twenty-two books of the Hebrew Bible. “He then speaks of other books “separate from these,” and “not among the genuine;” thus showing that he was acquainted with the apocryphal books, and intelligently rejected them.” [Bibliotheca Sacra, p. 302]…Ruffinus ,translator of Origen,called them noncanonical…and Jerome called them apocryphal -did not like them in canon (yes ,he reluctantly put them in Vulgate)

So that there would be a standard set of writings to be read in Church during Mass.

Yes but canonicity had nothing to do with whether a book was “inspired” ?

The council of Trent made declaration because Luther started tinkering with the Bible. He started to rearrange the books.

He was already excommunicated .What did his tinkering (changing order, or numbering but having same books ?) have anything to do with affecting past councils ,that declared Canon ?

Is this your opinion or your declaration as to what should be in the Bible?

Yes ,I am declaring my opinion.

Where it not for the Catholic Church, your opinion, and everybody else’s opinion…would result in 30,000 different versions of the Bible.

Disagree with slight inference of the importance of “your” Church. Again ,there was a bible before councils. The real focus should be that God gave them to us(vatican 1) The Corinthians benefited from day 1 of receiving Paul’s letter ,as I do when I first read it. .Yes,thank the Corinthian church for respecting it and keeping it and sharing it.Thank all the other churches for getting copies of it and respecting , keeping and sharing them also, etc.,etc.,etc.,… down to you and me…

 

[pablope]

Same thing, David…you are following the declaration of a Catholic Church council…that is why you know and accept the Bible as the word of God. It is not of your own volition, it is because somebody had witnessed and declared it for you…and you believe that declaration…and that was made by the Catholic Church.

I was talking of error of thinking Luther was only human to preface biblical books with opinion .You don’t know if any Catholics (eg Jerome) prefaced biblical books with opinion ?

Any prefaces of today’s bibles are put their by publishers, as far as I know.

Gregory Nazianzen (AD 390) set the books of the Bible in a poem. He gave the standard twenty-two books of the Hebrew Bible. “He then speaks of other books “separate from these,” and “not among the genuine;” thus showing that he was acquainted with the apocryphal books, and intelligently rejected them.” [Bibliotheca Sacra, p. 302]…Ruffinus ,translator of Origen,called them noncanonical…and Jerome called them apocryphal -did not like them in canon (yes ,he reluctantly put them in Vulgate)

David…what you are qouting is opinion. Maybe you misunderstood my question. Dissenting, meant openly challenging the Pope’s declaration as to the list of books that became the Bible. Can you find a Catholic openly challenging the declaration of the Pope and councils as to the canon…openly challenging the Church, in that the dissenter is saying he does not agree and thereby, will establish his own religion and separate from the CC?

Yes but canonicity had nothing to do with whether a book was “inspired” ?

This seems like circular reasoning. The writings are canonical, that is why they are considered inspired, isn’t it?

He was already excommunicated .What did his tinkering (changing order, or numbering but having same books ?) have anything to do with affecting past councils ,that declared Canon ?

Luther was making his own bible, to fit his newly invented theology. His actions later led to the removal of the 7 OT books. I have asked Lutherans, and have not been answered, as to why the NT books he disputed are still in the NT.

Yes ,I am declaring my opinion.

Disagree with slight inference of the importance of “your” Church. Again ,there was a bible before councils.

There was no Bible as you know it today, David…this is what everybody is telling you…and you keep going around in circles. It seems that you cannot accept historical fact, and making historical fact fit what you believe.

There was no unanimous list of books…but varying lists. It was by action of the CC that declared the final list of books that eventually became the Bible.

The real focus should be that God gave them to us(vatican 1) The Corinthians benefited from day 1 of receiving Paul’s letter ,as I do when I first read it. .Yes,thank the Corinthian church for respecting it and keeping it and sharing it.Thank all the other churches for getting copies of it and respecting , keeping and sharing them also, etc.,etc.,etc.,… down to you and me…

And without you honestly admitting it, the corinthian church was part of the Catholic Church, same with all the other churchers that preserved and handed down the other writings of the Bible. There were no protestant churches then.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

For the topic

History proves the Apostolic successors in the Popes and bishops from antiquity “Canonized” (measured all the letters in existence with apostolic names to their authenticity and ruled them by a measuring standard) Raised the canon books of the bible as “inspired of God”. The Catholic Church did this by her divine authority given her by Jesus Christ himself in the authority to “bind and loose” on earth.

How difficult is it to have faith as the apostles and their apostolic successors, by command of Jesus Christ Himself, “Do this in memory of me”, to His Church to worship God in Spirit and Truth with His True body, blood soul and divinity present to God’s Children?

For the Catholic Church to authenticate “God’s Word” as inspired in the Holy Ghost by a canon (measuring standard), must be the body of Christ (believers) on earth to celebrate the True presence of God in liturgy unchanged these past 2000 years, now that the Word of God made flesh.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Fact is .RP or" figurative" view can not literally be "proven , so is all this talk fallacy ? No .This is a matter of reasoning and faith .Faith holds on to evidences. We both provide evidences, some better than others . Maybe silence is not the best evidence for you , but it most certainly is evidence. It is most definitely a piece of the puzzle. If I say Jesus or the apostles did NOT quote Apocrypha ,or if I say ECF’S up to 130 A.D.,do not show RP, it is worthwhile information and should be introduced. Evidence is evidence.

This IS a matter of reasoning, and in reason you must follow the rules of logic. Terms are either clear or ambiguous, premises are either true or fallacious, and the conclusions either follow from the premises or they don’t.

THE Faith, the Christian Faith, posits claims that are true and must be believed. ** The RP can be proven as true because we, as professed Christians, both have the same data: the Bible.** Either you believe that data or you don’t. In interpreting the data you follow the authorative interpreter of that data, which is the Church( 1 Tim 3:15), not any one individual(2 Pet 3:20).

Silence is silence, not evidence. And you’re rationalizing, not reasoning. Your “evidence” would not even hold up in a court room because it is circumstantial and is based solely on your assumptions, not on any proof. Or let me put it this way. Following your assumption that silence is proof, then since the Bible is silent on abortion your MUST accept anyone that argues that abortion is Biblical, because nowhere in the Bible is abortion even mentioned.

You’re argument is essentially:

1. I believe the Eucharist is symbolic.
2. There’s no evidence prior to 130 that says that otherwise.
3. There is Igantius in 107 who says that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus- which could mean anything I want it to because he didn’t say anything beyond it.

Conclusion: Therefore the Eucharist is symbolic and I am right.

Or IOW, “I don’t care about such things as ‘objectivity’ or ‘con:sistency’ or ‘logic’ because MY preconceived ideas and opinions are more important, so I will only accept that which coincides and supports my ideas and reject that which doesn’t.”

Not only is your first premise false it is fallacious:circular logic. Your second premise is proven false by your admittance of Igantius in (3). And your third premise is false and fallacious because you’re assuming (1) in your interpretation of Ignatius and you’re depending on no evidence other than your assumption (1) as “proof”.

Your argument is that “Ignatius didn’t really mean what he meant, but meant what I want him to mean.”

So there is no way that your conclusion can follow from your premises, therefore your argument is false.
david ruiz:

Don’t remeber saying Ignatius was Ambiguous .At best I ackow;edged your use of them ,but said there was a coounter argument .That is not ambiguous.

And the counter argument is fallacious. You insist that he “believed” in something other than what he wrote. Which is absurd because Irenaeus-who came from the same Johnannine school as Polycarp & Ignatius-in his work “Against Heresies” repeats what Ignatius wrote and then expanded on it. Justin Martyr, thirty years earlier, who WASN’T in John’s school but rather was catechized and converted in Rome, writes the very same things in his “First Apology”. And both of these men INSIST that what they wrote is what was handed on to them by the Apostles and their successors and is in fact believed throughout the world.

So either all three of them-Ignatius, Justin ,and Irenaeus-either so utterly and completely misunderstood their teachers that they led the entire world into idolatry, or that it was really, according to your “Ignatius” merely “symbolic” or merely “figurative” which is in no way evidenced by him and is only an assumption on your part and contradicted by Justin and Irenaeus, or what they said IS exactly what they meant and the Eucharist is exactly what the Church has always said it was.

 

[lyrikal]

Hi Radical,

You are missing the difference. With Jesus standing in front of the three of us (you, the non-believer and me) no one is suggesting that the human body of Jesus isn’t present. The presence of his human body is detected and verified by our senses. The question in that case is whether God is also present in the room with the presence of Jesus (the presence of God is not something that we would typically expect to detect and verify by our senses) With your Eucharist in front of the three of us, you are the only one suggesting that bread isn’t present. For the rest of us, the presence of bread is detected and verified by our senses. A bodily presence is something that we would typically expect to detect and verify by our senses.

You are missing the point here, Radical. You are complicating matters for some reason. 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. My claim has taken the criteria of your claim and what I am claiming is that since Jesus has human flesh, then I can sense this human flesh by touching it and come to the conclusion that Jesus is only a human being.

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. We’ll come back to this point later on.

the second sentence is an assumption…

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? Do you mean that God can be touched just as physical matter can? Are you claiming that God can be touched physically in anyway? Doesn’t the Bible tell us that God is Spirit (John 4)? Can a spirit be touched physically? If so, then how do you explain this:

[37] But they were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit.
[38] And he said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do questionings rise in your hearts?
[39] See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have."

If a spirit can be touched, then Jesus’ point would be mute here since touching Him would not mean that He does not have a body. But that’s the whole point that Jesus is making. He is telling them to touch Him so that they can see that He has a physical matter unlike a spirit does where it doesn’t have a physical matter that can be touched.

Please help me understand your point in how the second sentence is an assumption.

but in any event, Thomas touched Christ’s human flesh and not his divine nature…Jesus was both (human and divine) whereas your Eucharist isn’t claimed to be both (bread and body).

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. Thomas did not use His senses to come to the conclusion that Jesus is God. His senses can be used to prove that Jesus has flesh. How did he know that Jesus is God? Because He believed in what Jesus claimed. You claim that Jesus claimed to be God and backed it up with miracles. Granted. This same Jesus who claimed to be God also took bread and claimed “This (bread) is my body.” Perhaps we can quote the passage that we are discussing so we can see something that leaves your whole “If I don’t have proof that I am eating flesh then I am not eating flesh” claim to go contrary to the mind of Jesus:

John 20:
[27] Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing.”
[28] Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
[29] Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”

Do you have proof of the resurrection, Radical? The same proof that you want from the Catholic Eucharist? Did you see Jesus resurrect? Did you see Him ascend? Assuming you didn’t, then why do you believe? Why don’t you require the same standard of proof of the resurrection and ascension as you do of the Eucharist? We will come back to this point later on.

and? I agree with J Dunn that Luke 24:30 described a typical traveller’s fellowship meal (not a Lord’s Supper)…a fellowship meal being something that Christ would have likely shared with those two disciples on many occasions.

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)”?

a fellowship meal being something that Christ would have likely shared with those two disciples on many occasions.

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.

Continued…

 

[lyrikal]

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,
What very day? This very day:

[1] But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices which they had prepared.

That is extremely important. What is the first day of the week? It is Sunday. When did the Early Christians celebrate the Eucharist? On Sunday. Sure, they celebrated everyday but Sunday was a more special day than all the other days because it is the day the Lord had risen. There are two parts to the story. Please pay attention to both parts because they are extremely important in telling us what the true historical context is and what these two parts mean to the Early Christians.

[14] and talking with each other about all these things that had happened.
[15] While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them.
[16] But their eyes were kept from recognizing him.

So there are two people and they are both blinded from recognizing Jesus. Keep that in mind because it is extremely important.

[17] And he said to them, “What is this conversation which you are holding with each other as you walk?” And they stood still, looking sad.
[18] Then one of them, named Cle’opas, answered him, “Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?”

That’s ironic because Jesus is the ONLY ONE who knows EXACTLY what has happened in those days. I love the irony here!

[19] And he said to them, “What things?” And they said to him, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people,
[20] and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him.
[21] But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since this happened.
[22] Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning
[23] and did not find his body; and they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive.
[24] Some of those who were with us went to the tomb, and found it just as the women had said; but him they did not see.”
[25] And he said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
[26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?”
[27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

So there seems to be some Scripture reading here. Also, we have some interpretation of the Scripture reading as well. This is key. Keep that in mind please.
[28] So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He appeared to be going further,
[29] but they constrained him, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them.
[30] When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them.

Compare this with:

[18] And as they were at table eating, Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me.”
[19] They began to be sorrowful, and to say to him one after another, “Is it I?”
[20] He said to them, “It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the dish with me.
[21] For the Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”
[22] And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.”

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.

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

Continued…

 

[lyrikal]

[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. 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? The WHOLE time He was with them, they did not recognize Him and He stayed. RIGHT when they recognize Him, He vanished. You’d think He would stay just a BIT longer. I mean, perhaps even a minute longer? What was He in such a hurry for?

Now please follow me here, I am going to take you on a road (no pun intended) that will help you understand why I think this is about the Eucharist. First of all, what we are going to deal with is this part: “And their eyes were opened….”

What does that remind you of? Go back to Genesis. Go back to Adam and Eve and the Tree. What does the Tree represent? It represents the Cross (which is a tree as St. Paul describes it). Why is that so significant? Well, what happened when they ATE OF THE FRUIT of the TREE? Let’s let the text tell us:

Genesis 3:
[1] Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?" [2] And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; [3] but God said, You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”
[4] But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die.
[5] For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
[6] So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.
[7] Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.

What do we have here? We have TWO CHARACTERS Adam and Eve taking from a TREE a FRUIT and EATING IT and their EYES BEING OPENED.

Now, what hung on the Tree of the Cross? Jesus. What does Luke (the same author) refer Jesus as when He is in the womb of Mary?

Luke 1:
[41] And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit
[42] and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the **fruit **of your womb!

Jesus is called a fruit. Very interesting. Let’s think about this. Eve’s obedience to the devil and her eating the fruit from that tree bore sin and death into the world. Mary’s obedience to the angel brought forth a fruit (Jesus) in her womb that is (to undo what Eve did) to bring life into the world.

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).

Now what does Genesis say would happen if Adam and Eve were to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Life?

[22] Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand **and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” **

So in Luke’s Gospel, if Jesus is the fruit, this fruit hung on a tree and died, was resurrected, etc…then what these two disciples ate was this new fruit, not merely bread. How do we know that this bread is the presence of Christ the way Catholics understand it? Because had they not had Him in their presence, He would not have vanished out of their site. THAT is why, the first time He was leaving, “HE APPEARED TO BE GOING FURTHER…” because being God He knew they would press Him to stay. He wasn’t really going anywhere.

[32] They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?”
[33] And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them,
[34] who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”
[35] Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.

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? The same Luke who wrote this Gospel? THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD. 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?

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.

Continued…

 

[lyrikal]

I asked you to focus your attention on the fact that there are two parts to the story. I also noted that the historical context is important in understanding the story. The two parts of the story are:

1.) Reading the Scriptures and interpreting them
2.) Breaking of the Bread

Guess what format the Early Church used when celebrating the Liturgy or Mass or Church or Service or whatever you want to call it? This format:

1.) Reading the Scriptures and then giving a homily (interpreting)
2.) Breaking of the Bread (Eucharist)

Let’s let St. Justin Martyr explain to us how the Early Christians celebrated on SUNDAYS. Yes, SUNDAY, which is the day the story happened. That is why I told you that the day (Sunday) is significant to knowing what Luke is doing here.

Here is how Justin Martyr describes the Worship in 150 AD:

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings (Eucharistia), according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.

Let’s be serious here. Luke was not describing to us merely a “traveller’s meal…” but was describing to us the very first Mass or service or Liturgy or worship or what have you. This was a big deal to the Christians back then that they did it DAILY (just as Catholics do). I don’t think anyone was thinking “Cool, a traveller’s meal” when reading this story. You are taking so much history out of context to try and take away from the fact that the Lord was made known to them through the Eucharist. Why? Because it doesn’t fit your Calvinistic agenda that this bread does nothing for anyone.

So I stand by what I said: The same way St. Thomas touched the human part of Jesus and was able to determine that He is touching God Himself (even though His senses say it is just flesh), so too can I tell you that the two disciples can touch that bread that they were holding and recognize that is Jesus that they are holding.

Bottom line: SENSES DO NOT ALWAYS TELL US THE FULL STORY.

Right, in contrast to a bodily presence, a divine presence is not determined by what we sense

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? 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. Just as there is no way for St. Thomas to sense that Jesus has a divine presence just by touching the flesh of Christ, I can say the same and say that there is no way that we can sense that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ merely by touching the bread.

indeed let’s…I’ll pick one of your examples. How was it determined that the fellow had a disease (say leprosy)? Answer: The people saw the symptons of leprosy. How was it determined that the fellow was healed of leprosy? Answer: the people saw that the symptons of leprosy were gone. Miracles were detected and verified in the same way as pretty well everything else was detected and verified on a day to day basis. Please note it surely wasn’t the case that the symptons of leprosy remained, and Christ was left to explain that the fellow had been really healed and that behind the signs of leprosy existed the substance of healed skin.

You’re comparing two different things here. One does not need to be explained because it is obvious and the other needs explanation because it is not so obvious. How about when you receive Christ as your Personal Lord and Savior? Don’t you then receive the Holy Spirit? Aren’t then your sins forgiven? Can you sense that part? If not, then you have no proof that anything happened. How do we know that we receive the Holy Spirit and our sins are forgiven? Because of what Christ said and because of what the Bible teaches. NOT BECAUSE WE SENSED IT. You can sense your flesh before and after the fact and it will be the same and yet in reality, you are no longer the same but you have now received the Holy Spirit. Not everything is determined by sense. Some things we determine by trusting what God tells us in the Bible (Jesus claiming to be God, Jesus resurrecting, Jesus ascending, Jesus claiming bread is His Body, etc.).

I am describing the argument that you provided for the hypothetical Jewish fellow.

You are actually taking my argument further than I took it which tells me you have misunderstood it.

to be precise I am putting the Greek philosophy behind your claims into a box and kicking it to the curb. I wouldn’t call it a “transformation” when no accidents of a body are present and the accidents of bread remain…who still approaches the world from such a philosophical POV? …aside from Catholics that is, for this one thing.

And who claims that Three can equal One? Besides all of us Christians that is, for this one thing (the Trinity).

Continued…

 

[lyrikal]

yes, they could claim it, but it would be on the basis of a different argument than I use against a RBP. This all started b/c GreyPilgrim wanted to know if Christ’s real flesh or symbolic flesh hung on the cross…how did Mary know that Jesus had been hung on the cross? She saw it with her eyes.

Yes, you’re right, I agree. Mary saw Jesus’ flesh hung on the cross and knew His flesh was hung on the cross. How did she know that God was hung on the cross? Because she knows that Jesus is not merely a man but He is God. Based on what? Based on what she was told and based on faith (NOT based on sense). What she saw on the cross with her eyes did not tell the whole story. Her eyes said: “A man is on that cross” but reality was “Godman is on that cross.”

the accidents vs substance stuff IS Greek philosophy

And one can make a compelling looking case that the Incarnation is also Greek Philosophy.

yep…one should evaluate a claim on the strength of the evidence and arguments that support the claim and not merely reject/accept everything b/c of the source
yes, b/c what I believe is determined by the evidence and arguments in support thereof…

The greeks believed in godmen as well. One can say that the Christians took the idea from them. Not that it’s the same exact idea (as I’m sure the Greeks did not have a Eucharistic idea of substance vs. accidents) but one can argue that the idea of the incarnation was borrowed. You would never accept that. Why? Because it goes against what you believe. You will believe the Catholic Eucharistic philosophy was Greekish. Why? Because you disagree with that doctrine and therefore will believe it.

agreed…even if the fellow claimed to be God. Now, if he performed a whole lot of miracles and claimed to be God…that would be something to consider.

So you’d believe this fellow’s (who looks like a mere being) claim of being God to be true but you won’t believe this SAME fellow’s claim of bread being His body being true. And I’m glad you admit that we would consider it based on what He SAID and based on what He DID not based on sense.

do you argue that the clock is no longer present? …hopefully not. hopefully you would say that a broken clock is present.

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.

I am saying that the Catholic description of what supposedly happens doesn’t jive with standard word usage… and that the philosophy behind the HOW doesn’t work (IMHO).

And the Trinity jives with standard mathematical usage or even word usage? 3 equals 1? Really? Our Christian faith has mysteries. Doesn’t Saint Paul say “We live by faith, not by sight”? And here you are asking for sight. I find it so ironic that someone who believes in FAITH ALONE requires proof of the Catholic Eucharist.

we are not mere objects to God

It’s an analogy…

no…it would be that what they claim is validated by the miracles…did they claim to be God or to speak for God?

Exactly! It has to do with what is claimed and not just merely on sense. Jesus claimed that the bread is His Body…

they haven’t been open to proper independent testing, have they? I could find a bit of heart tissue and get it independently tested to verify that it is human heart tissue and claim that it came from the transformation of a piece of bread in my kitchen a year ago…the test doesn’t verify the transformation b/c it can’t speak to what did or didn’t happen in my kitchen and in fact, the test couldn’t determine if the tissue sample was ever even in my kitchen

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. As you know, the claim is that, during Mass, the bread and the wine turned into the Body and Blood of Christ. Perhaps you can help the scientists out because there are some things that they just cannot answer. Here they are:

• The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.
• The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
• The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.
• In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.
• The Flesh is a “HEART” complete in its essential structure.
• The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).
• In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
• In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
• The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

So who did this study? Dr. Edoardo Linoli, a professor of anatomy and pathological histology, and of chemistry and clinical microscopy, and former head of the Laboratory of Pathological Anatomy at the Hospital of Arezzo He was assisted by Dr. Ruggero Bertelli, retired professor of human anatomy at the University of Siena. This

When was this study done? 1970.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano

Continued…

 

[lyrikal]

Also: The blood, as we have it today, is now dry blood and it is now blood clot. There are actually 5 balls of blood clots. They are all different sizes and yet they all weigh the same. Not only that, but if you weigh one blood clot, it weighs the same as if you put all 5 blood clots on a scale.

Now that you know a little bit of the background to the studies done, I will post an article that dates back to 05/05/2005 in which Dr. Lionli spoke out about the study he had done.

Article is as follows:

Edoardo Linoli Verified Authenticity of the Phenomenon

ROME, MAY 5, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Dr. Edoardo Linoli says he held real cardiac tissue in his hands, when some years ago he analyzed the relics of the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, Italy.

The phenomenon dates back to the eighth century. A Basilian monk, who had doubts about the real presence of Christ in the sacred species, was offering Mass, in a church dedicated to St. Legontian in the town of Lanciano.

When he pronounced the words of the consecration, the host was miraculously changed into physical flesh and the wine into physical blood.

Later the blood coagulated and the flesh remained the same. These relics were kept in the cathedral.

Linoli, a professor of anatomy and pathological histology, and of chemistry and clinical microscopy, and former head of the Laboratory of Pathological Anatomy at the Hospital of Arezzo, is the only doctor who has analyzed the relics of the miracle of Lanciano. His findings have stirred interest in the scientific world.

At the initiative of Archbishop Pacifico Perantoni of Lanciano, and of the provincial minister of the Franciscan Conventuals of Abruzzo, and with authorization from Rome, in November 1970 the Franciscans of Lanciano decided to have the relics examined scientifically.

Linoli was entrusted with the study. He was assisted by Dr. Ruggero Bertelli, retired professor of human anatomy at the University of Siena.

Linoli extracted parts of the relics with great care and then analyzed the remains of “miraculous flesh and blood.” He presented his findings on March 4, 1971.

His study confirmed that the flesh and blood were of human origin. The flesh was unequivocally cardiac tissue, and the blood was of type AB.

Consulted by ZENIT, Linoli explained that “as regards the flesh, I had in my hand the endocardium. Therefore, there is no doubt at all that it is cardiac tissue.”

In regard to the blood, the scientist emphasized that “the blood group is the same as that of the man of the holy Shroud of Turin, and it is particular because it has the characteristics of a man who was born and lived in the Middle East regions.”

“The AB blood group of the inhabitants of the area in fact has a percentage that extends from 0.5% to 1%, while in Palestine and the regions of the Middle East it is 14-15%,” Linoli said.

Linoli’s analysis revealed no traces of preservatives in the elements, meaning that the blood could not have been extracted from a corpse, because it would have been rapidly altered.

Linoli’s report was published in “Quaderni Sclavo di Diagnostica Clinica e di Laboratori” in 1971.

In 1973, the Higher Council of the World Health Organization (WHO) appointed a scientific commission to verify the Italian doctor’s conclusions. The work was carried out over 15 months with a total of 500 examinations. The conclusions of all the researches confirmed what had been stated and published in Italy.

The extract of the scientific research of WHO’s medical commission was published in New York and Geneva in 1976, confirming science’s inability to explain the phenomenon.

Today, Linoli participated in a congress on Eucharistic miracles organized by the Science and Faith master’s program of Rome’s Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University, in cooperation with the St. Clement I Pope and Martyr Institute, on the occasion of the Year of the Eucharist under way.

“Eucharistic miracles are extraordinary phenomena of a different type,” Legionary Father Rafael Pascual, director of the congress, told Vatican Radio. “For example, there is the transformation of the species of bread and wine into flesh and blood, the miraculous preservation of consecrated Hosts, and some Hosts that shed blood.”

“In Italy, these miracles have occurred in several places,” he said, "but we also find them in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain " and some in North America.

Source: zenit.org/article-12933?l=english

agreed, so to claim that a bodily presence is involved or that you actually eat the Lord’s flesh is to abuse the English language

And that 3 actually equals 1 is to abuse the Mathematical language.

Continued…

 

[lyrikal]

well, if it wasn’t figurative, then in accordance with the HOW that he provided…and he didn’t provide a HOW of transubstantiation. There is nothing to suggest that he introduced an entirely unique mode by which something would exist. He provided what was obviously a figure and the only reason (that I can imagine) why someone would not recognize such an obvious figure is that the fellow himself is not satisifed with a figure and thinks that he needs something more (or believes that he must follow the teaching of some authority that isn’t satisfied with a figure and thinks that something more is needed).

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.

 

[lyrikal]

Radical,

If you would like to refute the Eucharistic Miracles further, I direct you to a fellow named Dr. Ricardo Castanon who was an atheist but when he studied Catholic miracles, he became a devout Catholic. He goes around and gives talks regarding the miracles. There is a talk that is an hour long that can be found here.

I highly recommend you watch it if you are so interested in the scientific aspect of the miracles. If you want to watch the Eucharistic Miracle portion, fast forward to about the 22:50 minute mark (it’s about 10 mins long).

This is not just simple minded idiots going around believing these things. Science can’t explain it so I highly doubt that you are going to be able to. But if you think it is that easy, please refute the findings.

God bless.

 

[Trebor135]

Conveniently ? I did answer," I don’t know" .First of all I’d have to read all Augustines stuff ,then I’d have to read 4,5, 6 various statements of faith by the main denominations ,and go from there .I fully doubt he would be full blown Catholic.He would be evangelical -that is one needs a personal experience with Christ .

What would a “full blown Catholic” be? And when have Catholics denied that “a personal experience with Christ” is beneficial/critical?

Well, then pointing to agreement as evidence of truth is “relative” also.

When have I cited agreement as evidence of truth?

Good except Protestants believe that also ,in absolute truth and that it can be known .We just differ on how it is to be known.

Only de jure can Protestants believe in an absolute truth and that it can be known. But de facto, with their complicity in and justification of (incessant and irresolvable) factionalism, they don’t show this to be the case.

Again , this has nothing to do with absoluteness or relativity .,but in the “how”, a very negative "how’. One could bring up a negative view on your "how’ also -whichIi have done ,so we are even.

Well, how do you propose to bring unity to Protestantism? How will you get Lutherans and Pentecostals to agree on infant baptism, for example: a council, David Ruiz’s opinion, the historical record…?

No, just a question,relative to literalness and symbolism of Eucharist and Passover.

True. Others have addressed this issue well.

So, the Holy Spirit has the body of a dove ? I understand it was both symbolic and real .This is a specific instance .

That doesn’t mean (a) this event didn’t happen, or (b) a similar event couldn’t happen regularly from Christ’s time onward, if God set that in place.

Sorry ,it was ECFs, that talked of water and the wine as symbols of Word and the Spirit .That is ok .It has been shown to me Catholics believe both symbolism and literalness.

Excellent.

No, “those who believed not” walked away cause of the eating .Nothing about “weak faith” or impostors.

If they didn’t have faith of some degree before, what were they doing listening to Jesus anyway?

Correct .The point stands .Jesus sometimes uses figurative speech when it comes to things one must do to be saved. Whether , as you point out , it is once or many times ,it stands.

Indeed.

I think so .There are sheeps and goats .He must show us our own "goatness’ and give us the desire to be a sheep under His staff. Job says God is master at that…This matters more than to RP or not.

If “RP” is really true, wouldn’t you want to know once and for all so you could run to the church that had it and join ASAP?

Thanks for being honest again .The only hint is when Peter says “your Words are eternal life” -Jesus earlier says eating him is eternal life.I believe Augustine mentions this hence ,believing his words is eating him. Again it is a hint.

The analogy others have expounded concerning the “memorial” of the Passover and that of Communion will decide this argument.

Ok I like your process.I think there is a third explanation ,and it is not ambiguous ,given the entire text .Indeed it was unusual text ,but it only magnified what was there already -unbelief,or rather ( for we all have faith ,just not saving faith ) it showed what they did believe in a Messiah, that he would not die ,or resurrect or Ascend back to heaven…They did not believe from the beginning scripture says.

Well, where in the Bible does this notion of “saving faith” come from?