What real presence views are in line with OT

[benhur]

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.” 59 He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.

The Words of Eternal Life
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” 61 But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But among you there are some who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him. 65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.”

66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.

Sorry for the large chunk of text but I’ve always thought this passage incredibly clear. This was one of the first doctrinal differences I discovered in my Baptists days and it still rings true to me now.

He made what were offensive statements, regarding the consumption of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, to his disciples and never backed off of them. He took it to the point where many of his disciples abandoned him and he even questioned the Apostles whether they would leave too. That makes me think he wasn’t willing to back off one single inch.

Jesus preached love. In my mind, if what he said wasn’t meant to be taken literally, then it was cruel to use words that would drive others away from him. It was a hard teaching and that’s why many left. If it was just a symbol, wouldn’t the Christ that preached love and gave himself in love have said, “Wait, don’t leave, It’s just a symbol”, or something to that extent?

If it was just a symbol, then why would Saint Paul have warned against consuming it unworthily? Some of the teachings of Catholicism that many converts have difficulty accepting, came easily to me. This was one of those. Even as a Baptist, I didn’t think it was meant to be a symbol.

The "love " approach of interpretation leaves out the double edged sword, the rock of offense that other scriptures say Christ is. He did drive them away, and that was half the purpose ! They were not believers, but were following for wrong reasons and there souls were at stake if they remained in their delusion. So, it was love for their souls that He drove them away…from the delusion. Perhaps they repented (of unbelief in whom Jesus really was) and were finally illumined on Pentecost Sunday. Read the chapter fully and perhaps you may see this interpretation also. It is a masterpiece of effective words, way beyond transubstantiation.

 

[Augustine3]

My take is that real presence in the bread and wine, as suggested by Catholic transsubstantiation, has no figuring or foreshadow in OT. A symbolic or possibly a spiritual presence is. The idea of eating Godly flesh is first found in paganism. Having said that I do not deny that sometimes Satan can mimic Godly ways and even practices but then that would also require that he have foreknowledge and of that I am not sure. For sure God told him of some things to come like his judgement and his crushing but not sure he was told of future “eucharisting”. So it is problematic that Satan mimicked a future rite. Then we are left with the question is this something totally new to God’s program (Transubstantiation) or is it a worldly influence on Christian definition of real presence and communion .

The very early Christians believed the Eucharist is indeed the flesh of Jesus Christ. In fact St Ignatius of Antioch the student of St John the apostle wrote the following

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.* —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch *6

 

[benhur]

Wouldn’t it be a sin to tell someone to do something that was against the law? I’m struggling here…

Sorry about not being more compassionate. You are in good company. I have read that there were and still are actually 4 views on the matter and they were exhibited from the early church also . Take St. Augustine. Many cite him for historical evidence, from all four views. On one hand he believes in a type of real presence but he also says it is not a thing for teeth and bellies ( not a literal eating of Jesus) . …Yes ,it is a sin to tell or suggest for one to go against the Law. It would be like a Catholic “prophet” today telling Catholics to do something that is against Catholic teaching/dogma.

 

[Duane1966]

Yes, I improperly stated a “Godly” sacrifice. The topic is of eating a sacrifices (animal) in hopes of benefiting from the god it was sacrificed to, to incorporate the god’s essence/spirit/power. This is and was pagan. Judaism was to be different. The sacrifice was partly for appeasement, or honor or thanksgiving . The sacrifice did not make you God-like, but did reconcile you to Him. The Romans were abhorred because of the human Christian sacrifice and the eating thereof implied. Martyr repels the idea of cannibalism not by saying the bread and wine only appear as such but are really the Body and blood of the Lord, but says they are still “food” -bread and wine. His Real Presence was a spiritual one and not literal, thus avoiding appearance of cannibalism. He strongly suggests it is a thanksgiving, over and over again, and not a sacrifice. Martyr while not espousing pure symbolism does not espouse transubstantiation of 1200 AD either

Martyr in his first apology clearly states that the Eucharist is real flesh and blood. And in his dialogue with Trypho he clearly states that it is a sacrifice.

 

[benhur]

The very early Christians believed the Eucharist is indeed the flesh of Jesus Christ. In fact St Ignatius of Antioch the student of St John the apostle wrote the following

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.* —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch *6

That is right, he may be stressing a real presence but not transubstantiation. The eucharist is all about His coming in the flesh and dying for us. We remember and give thanks for the Body and Blood that was shed to set us free. Non-transubstantiatinists are not Dosetists, to who Ignatius was referring to (said Christ came not in flesh , nor suffered in flesh, nor rose in flesh- hence did not Eucharist)

 

[benhur]

Martyr in his first apology clearly states that the Eucharist is real flesh and blood. And in his dialogue with Trypho he clearly states that it is a sacrifice.

Yes but how is it His flesh and blood, for it is still “food” also (bread and wine) ? Not sure of Trypho writing. it is a sacrifice …of praise.

 

[benhur]

Wouldn’t it be a sin to tell someone to do something that was against the law? I’m struggling here…

““Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers,…But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh* figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified… preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, *when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, " Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus 1:6-10)…This interpretation is more in line with Judaic thinking and is not against the Law.

 

[Duane1966]

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

 

[Nine_Two]

Rabbi Tovia Singer, an expert Jewish apologist, points out that the Paschal Lamb of Exodus, which is so often likened to a foreshadowing of Jesus, is in fact symbolic of a revered Egyptian god that predated Exodus.Therefore Jews were forbidden to slaughter the holy lamb and smear its blood on their doorposts during Passover. The fact that Jews did this anyway reveals that they feared only G-d. According to Jewish teaching, it is not the blood of the Paschal Lamb that absolves from sin, but rather the use of the lamb during Passover, including its ingestion, is an act of defiance against the Hebrews’ oppressors as well as a sign of complete faithfulness in G-d’s protection.

I thought it was the use of the scapegoat that was traditionally for the absolution of sins in Judaism. The Passover was never about absolution until Christianity came about with the sacrifice of Christ.

 

[Nine_Two]

I agree. So how can we defend what Jesus said was literal when I have heard protestants say that Jesus would never have spoken against the ‘law’ or Torah. Thus, he couldn’t have meant it literally? Thanks.

SJ

If you only read the law itself, and go no further, then that is an excellent argument.

But of course we have to go further, Christ taught us that the letter of the law is unimportant, rather it is the spirit of the law we must abide be.

‘I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people.

Hard to argue with that, right? Then you get to the next verse:
Leviticus 17:11:

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.

Here we have a few reasons.

1. Blood is the life of the creature
2. Blood is for atonement

So in the case of drinking the blood of the Christ, we are drinking the life of our eternal God, for the purpose of atonement.

Which meshes nicely with the literal interpretation of what Christ said in John 6.

 

[Augustine3]

That is right, he may be stressing a real presence but not transubstantiation. The eucharist is all about His coming in the flesh and dying for us. We remember and give thanks for the Body and Blood that was shed to set us free. Non-transubstantiatinists are not Dosetists, to who Ignatius was referring to (said Christ came not in flesh , nor suffered in flesh, nor rose in flesh- hence did not Eucharist)

That’s not what he’s saying. He said the Eucharist is his flesh, not just some memorial.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, the Bread of the Presence, in the ancient Tabernacle and later in the Temple, 1 Kgs 7:48 prefigured Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.

In the Tabernacle God commanded Moses, Ex 25:8 “Let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst.” In the sanctuary, in the ark of the covenant, God told Moses, Ex 25:22 “There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you…” God added, Ex 25:30 “You shall set the bread of the Presence on the table before me always.” Jesus told us, Mt 28:20 “I am with you always.”

Abimelech the priest gave David this sacred bread.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Is it true that in OT, one could not eat or drink the blood of their sacrifice ? God’s law prohibited this in order to maintain the distinction between the Israelites and the pagans. Pagans ate and drank the meat and blood of their sacrifices as a means of incorporating their gods into their bodies and into their lives. Yes the priest could partake but not anyone else. Is this partly why the Lord chose bread and wine as new covenant symbols and how does this lend to the apostles and to us the understanding of our remembrance ?

The pagan sacrifices were killed and then eaten.

Jesus instituted the His true presence in the Eucharist during the Passover alive, and again when he resurrected fully alive see Luke 24.

Your symbol or metaphorical interpretation of the Eucharist permanently fails to fulfill the Passover and it never becomes a perpetual (eternal) sacrifice according to God’s Word.

God commanded Moses to sacrifice a literal lamb (see Exodus) so that the angel of death would Passover those dwellings where the lambs blood was placed to protect them.

What your interpretation fails at it, is that God commanded Moses and His people they had to consume and literally eat that sacrificial lamb.

Then God commanded Moses and all the 12 tribes to do this “in remembrance” for all generations and to keep the Passover meal of lamb and unleavened bread as a perpetual law, when God says perpetual, God means the Passover will never end.

The temple where God’s name dwelt was destroyed in 70 a.d. The holy of holies was torn open at the crucifixion. These signs and symbols of the Old testament have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ sacrifice, and remains an eternal perpetual command by God that is practiced in the Catholic Church since the resurrection to today unchanged.

It takes a literal true Lamb of God to take away the sins of the World. for every age in humanity. A symbolic lamb could never take away anyone’s sin.

That perpetual lamb sacrifice in the Eucharist fulfills the whole law and prophets see Malachi 1:11

Those disciples who left Jesus in John 6. would of never left Jesus had they believed Jesus to be teaching your symbolic bread and wine which can do nothing for anyone, but God’s Word reveals that they left Jesus and His Eucharistic teaching of His body and blood.

When Jesus taught to eat His body and drink His blood, Jesus was calling the Jews out of the old covenant for which Jesus was sent by the Father in heaven to bring to eternal fulfillment.

If Jesus crucifixion only saved those in the first century, a symbolic Jesus can never save anyone. We need God’s true lamb of blood to save in all ages and we need to continue to eat literally the sacrificial Passover lamb as God commanded and made this “do this in remembrance of me” an eternal sacrifice in His own Eucharist as a perpetual practice for all His children to do in order to have eternal life.

A symbolic Jesus can never give eternal life. But a true Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity gives His body and blood for us to become partakers of His divinity (see 1Peter ) who gives the believer and followers of His commandments to “do this” eternal life.

There does not exist a symbolic Spirit in all of scripture. Substance and the true Cross in the Eucharist becomes your stumbling block here. But we Catholics can help you.

Peace be with you

 

[benhur]

That’s not what he’s saying. He said the Eucharist is his flesh, not just some memorial.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, the Bread of the Presence, in the ancient Tabernacle and later in the Temple, 1 Kgs 7:48 prefigured Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.

In the Tabernacle God commanded Moses, Ex 25:8 “Let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst.” In the sanctuary, in the ark of the covenant, God told Moses, Ex 25:22 “There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you…” God added, Ex 25:30 “You shall set the bread of the Presence on the table before me always.” Jesus told us, Mt 28:20 “I am with you always.”

Abimelech the priest gave David this sacred bread.

The tabernacle of the Lord is in men now and we are His temple. The OT was a foreshadow as you point out, but should we continue a tabernacle made with hands still ? Should we do both old and new testament ? Besides, the bread was still bread and was representative of His presence and need of reliance. David was hungry and ate bread as “food”. OT was symbolism, as I believe it continues. Just what it is beyond that in real presence is the issue. If I admit Ignatius said bread is body, you must admit he still said it was bread/food (not your transubstantiation)…And you shall set upon the table showbread before me always…That is the KJV. It is the bread that is placed before the presence of God but His presence is not in the bread . The bread “faces” the Lord hence showbread. The CC version is different because you are saying it is not bread but His body, which is foreign to OT symbolism of Exodus.

 

[benhur]

The pagan sacrifices were killed and then eaten.

Jesus instituted the His true presence in the Eucharist during the Passover alive, and again when he resurrected fully alive see Luke 24.

Your symbol or metaphorical interpretation of the Eucharist permanently fails to fulfill the Passover and it never becomes a perpetual (eternal) sacrifice according to God’s Word.

God commanded Moses to sacrifice a literal lamb (see Exodus) so that the angel of death would Passover those dwellings where the lambs blood was placed to protect them.

What your interpretation fails at it, is that God commanded Moses and His people they had to consume and literally eat that sacrificial lamb.

Then God commanded Moses and all the 12 tribes to do this “in remembrance” for all generations and to keep the Passover meal of lamb and unleavened bread as a perpetual law, when God says perpetual, God means the Passover will never end.

The temple where God’s name dwelt was destroyed in 70 a.d. The holy of holies was torn open at the crucifixion. These signs and symbols of the Old testament have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ sacrifice, and remains an eternal perpetual command by God that is practiced in the Catholic Church since the resurrection to today unchanged.

It takes a literal true Lamb of God to take away the sins of the World. for every age in humanity. A symbolic lamb could never take away anyone’s sin.

That perpetual lamb sacrifice in the Eucharist fulfills the whole law and prophets see Malachi 1:11

Those disciples who left Jesus in John 6. would of never left Jesus had they believed Jesus to be teaching your symbolic bread and wine which can do nothing for anyone, but God’s Word reveals that they left Jesus and His Eucharistic teaching of His body and blood.

When Jesus taught to eat His body and drink His blood, Jesus was calling the Jews out of the old covenant for which Jesus was sent by the Father in heaven to bring to eternal fulfillment.

If Jesus crucifixion only saved those in the first century, a symbolic Jesus can never save anyone. We need God’s true lamb of blood to save in all ages and we need to continue to eat literally the sacrificial Passover lamb as God commanded and made this “do this in remembrance of me” an eternal sacrifice in His own Eucharist as a perpetual practice for all His children to do in order to have eternal life.

A symbolic Jesus can never give eternal life. But a true Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity gives His body and blood for us to become partakers of His divinity (see 1Peter ) who gives the believer and followers of His commandments to “do this” eternal life.

There does not exist a symbolic Spirit in all of scripture. Substance and the true Cross in the Eucharist becomes your stumbling block here. But we Catholics can help you.

Peace be with you

None of the four versions of RP fail the perpetual Passover test .They are all remembrance of that. The OT passover did not require anything beyond symbolism and the eating thereof. It did not require that the symbols actually represented the actual original sacrifice.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

benhur;12281289]None of the four versions of RP fail the perpetual Passover test .They are all remembrance of that.

What are the four versions of RP? Since the resurrection of Jesus there has only been one real presence teaching from Jesus and practiced by the apostles and the Catholic Church since Pentecost. All others are man made.

The perpetual law ordained by God consisted of a real life a lamb which was ordered by God to be consumed (to eat the flesh of the lamb)

God does not lie. God incarnate made eternal the perpetual lamb sacrifce in himself, witnessed by the greatest prophet born of woman, who called Hiim the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World”.

The symbol of a real life lamb foreshadowed the eternal lamb of God, when the Word commands “to eat my flesh and drink my blood” in order to have eternal life from eternal death.

For one to eat a cracker and grape juice defies the reality of God and His Word who lives and who brings to fulfillment the reality (old testament) which is close to disappearing, such as the signs and shadows of the old covenant which are made fulfilled in the true eternal reality that does not end.

That is why Jesus is the lamb in heaven as thou slain in the liturgy in heaven recorded in Revelations made present on earth as it is in heaven the real presence of the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world.

To believe a symbol of Jesus exists to remember an event without participating in that event, is living ones faith of a past event that is never present cannot save anyyone and neglects the perpetual law of God to keep the eternal True Passover which fulfilled the old Passover.

You do not practice neither the old testament Passover because they used a real life lamb sacrifice and ate it. Crackers and grape juice do not apply here. And you do not practice the new and everlasting covenant of the real life Lamb of God who’s Word is present in every age to make present His Eucharist a sacrifice for the sin of the World.

The OT passover did not require anything beyond symbolism and the eating thereof. It did not require that the symbols actually represented the actual original sacrifice.

The OT Passover required a real life living lamb sacrificed and consumed by all. The ordinance or law of God here is the foreshadowing and sign of the coming fulfillment of the real life source in Jesus the Lamb of God, who makes the perpetual law and eternal perpetual sacrifice, made present in His liturgy of the last supper (Catholic Mass) unchanged since apostolic times.

You would be hard pressed to try and convince a practicing Jew that the Old Passover was mere symbolism when they practice their Passover in the “do this” as a perpetual ordinance from God.

It is Jesus who reveals to His Church this; Luke 24:44 “These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that EVERYTHING written about me in the Law of the prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled”

Here’s a little bible study for you;
benhur. the english translation of “do this in remembrance”, is never interpreted without the sacred Tradition of the apostles who were all Jews. The original word scripture used was “eis ten emen Anamnesis” = literally for my rememberance.

Anamnesis (Greek) = (English rememberance) describes more that a proclamation of Christ’s death (sacrifice) of a real divine revelation of a past event, anamnesis is taking an action that brings to the present place and time something from the past or from another world.

When we humans speak our word, our words can do nothing of themselves.
But when God speaks His Word “this is my body, this is my blood” an action occurs. Just as when God spoke His Word in the beginning, all creation came to be.

God calls us to faith in His Word to believe in His Word incarnate. God never calls us to believe in a cracker and grape juice to reflect what God said and did.

In the old testament liturgy of the Passover, every Jew in every age made the Passover from “Zakar” (Hebrew) in keeping with the rememberance (English), which was a literally reliving and making present to them the divine action of God during the Exodus revelations of God from a past event.

In other words both Passover’s are never a repeating of a past divine event. The anamnesis and zakar = rememberance is a proclamation of the past revelation from God made present always in the lives of those following the dictates of the Law of God and the commandments of Jesus to “Eat my flesh and drink my blood”.

I’m still puzzled about the 4 different RP’s???

Peace be with you

 

[Augustine3]

The tabernacle of the Lord is in men now and we are His temple. The OT was a foreshadow as you point out, but should we continue a tabernacle made with hands still ? Should we do both old and new testament ? Besides, the bread was still bread and was representative of His presence and need of reliance. David was hungry and ate bread as “food”. OT was symbolism, as I believe it continues. Just what it is beyond that in real presence is the issue. If I admit Ignatius said bread is body, you must admit he still said it was bread/food (not your transubstantiation)…And you shall set upon the table showbread before me always…That is the KJV. It is the bread that is placed before the presence of God but His presence is not in the bread . The bread “faces” the Lord hence showbread. The CC version is different because you are saying it is not bread but His body, which is foreign to OT symbolism of Exodus.

Did you open this thread to get an understanding of the Catholic perspective or to debate? If it’s to debate then I’ll let the others refute you. I have no intention to debate. Debates are usually a waste of time can often be an exercise of ego…

 

[Duane1966]

Ignatius quotes:

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to Romans 7:3)

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to Philadelphians 4:1)

They [the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrn 7:1)

Yes the bread and wine are food, the food is now the flesh and blood of Christ.

Do not see how this is NOT transubstantiation!

53 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.
54 Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.b
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

Why have this discourse at all using flesh and blood terminology over and over again and saying gnaw on my body if this is all just symbolic? And for roughly 1500 years this concept was only challenged a few times. If the church got it wrong from the beginning then I guess the Spirit has not guided it into all truth. Which would make Jesus a …

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

God revealed His true presence (not His essence) to Adam in the cool of the day, God revealed His true presence to the patriarch’s in His voice, the burning bush, the fire by night in the cloud by day, in the tabernacle, the ark of the covenant, at the rock in the desert which Moses was ordered by God to smite which gave the living waters to the Hebrews in the desert, not to exclude the whispering wind to Elijah.

In the fullness of times God’s Word became flesh and revealed His true presence in the flesh of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

If God revealed His true presence in all of the above, how difficult is faith to believe that God makes His presence known in His sacrificial Eucharist in the accidents of bread and wine?

Faith is the realization of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen, for all things visible came from the invisible, when God calls those things that did not exist into existence by His Word.

Faith superseded all carnal knowledge of symbols and signs that reflect the eternal reality of God.

It is the Spirit who gives life to these (bread and wine) while the flesh is of no avail.

Thus the Spirit who is an eternal person in the blessed Trinity reveals the true presence of flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ to our spirit, when God (Spirit) reveals and teaches our spirit the eternal reality of that once and for all sacrifice made present in every age.

Peace be with you

 

[benhur]

Yes the bread and wine are food, the food is now the flesh and blood of Christ.

But they are still food according to Ignatius, and not just in appearance. They do not cease to be bread and wine at this juncture in history.

53 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.
54 Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.b
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

How do you view 55-57 as literal when you don’t 58 ? Why can’t you spiritualize all four verses instead of just the one ? ( you will still die if you eat His flesh like our Exodus ancestors,…and everyone lives forever, somewhere )

 

[benhur]

Did you open this thread to get an understanding of the Catholic perspective or to debate? If it’s to debate then I’ll let the others refute you. I have no intention to debate. Debates are usually a waste of time can often be an exercise of ego…

The thread is for all folks, not just Catholics, to give their (name removed by moderator)ut on how their RP views “fit with OT, Judaic understanding. Yes, let us avoid “vain disputation” and” ego". Though I am quite qualified to fall into that trap by experience, I don’t think my post you are responding to is one of them.