Which of the following two assertions is the one that is the most probable...

[joe370]

Which of the following two assertions is the one that is the most probable:

1) A united witness throughout Christian history - a view of a realist Real Presence that not only matches the grammar of sacred scripture but also takes Jesus' words in the Gospels literally.

Or…
2) A novel view that was seen nowhere for the first eleven centuries and was virtually non-existent after that for another five centuries until a few people like Calvin, Bucer, and Zwingli started proclaiming that everyone before them -- (including Martin Luther interestingly enough) - was wrong. Essentially a view of a symbolic presence that seeks to explain away Jesus' literal words in the Gospels.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

i pick 1

 

[JonNC]

i pick 1

ditto,
Jon

 

[Araninski]

Well it depends on what are you referring, most “Bible” Christians believe in the “Real Presence”, as in that:

Matthew 18:20
“For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”

Most believe He is really around us when congregating, at least I do . As for transubstantiation, in the Eucharist (Thanksgiving and Communion, Lord’s Supper), I believe it is symbolic, but it is representing a spiritual action that happens when eating in communion, because:

1 Corinthians 10:2-4
“They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.”

I believe the food and drink He was talking about was spiritual and not physical, I believe the transubstantiation belief focus a lot on the physical part of it, forgetting the important part, which is, spiritual.

Nonetheless, I don’t believe transubstantiation it is evil or whatever, but I think there should be more worship time on Mass, and that people should stand up when saying the Psalms, at least.

Yahweh bless.

 

[tester]

False dichotomy: as the straw man premise in choice #2 is flawed.

And in addition from a philosophical view: is Truth determined by the length of time a belief is held?

Would not Zoroastrianism, Hinduism or even Atheism be truer because of their age?

In other words : the sole fact that the Catholic Church believe something for 2000 years does not necessarily make it true:

If your goal is to prove the Truth of transubstantiation; you would need additonal points other than a belief’s age.

And those other points have been discussed in other threads.

 

[SunnaB16]

False dichotomy: as the straw man premise in choice #2 is flawed…

Your own post is a red herring.
In the context, the answer is restricted to ONLY TWO STATEMENTS. And pagan religions aren`t included.

By the way: i`ll go for #1!

 

[SunnaB16]

Well it depends on what are you referring, most “Bible” Christians believe in the “Real Presence”, as in that:

Matthew 18:20
“For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”

Most believe He is really around us when congregating, at least I do . As for transubstantiation, in the Eucharist (Thanksgiving and Communion, Lord’s Supper), I believe it is symbolic, but it is representing a spiritual action that happens when eating in communion…

Yahweh bless.

Jesus is not just a spirit.
For His Real Presence to be truly Real, He has to be bodily present.
So, after the Consecration, He is fully present: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Total Christ. That`s Who we Catholics receive. A physical act which gives Sanctifying Grace.

Dont downplay the dignity of the human body: its part of us as persons; and its not evil. Were fed Truth through our physical senses.

Holy Communion is a Sacrament.
With each of the seven Sacraments, theres a physical action which validates it: eg water, anointing with oil, the Sign of Absolution. In the Gospels: the bleeding woman TOUCHED our Lords garment; our Lord made a paste out of saliva and dust. Physical acts.

 

[ERose]

Well it depends on what are you referring, most “Bible” Christians believe in the “Real Presence”, as in that:

Matthew 18:20
“For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”

Most believe He is really around us when congregating, at least I do . As for transubstantiation, in the Eucharist (Thanksgiving and Communion, Lord’s Supper), I believe it is symbolic, but it is representing a spiritual action that happens when eating in communion, because:

1 Corinthians 10:2-4
“They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.”

I believe the food and drink He was talking about was spiritual and not physical, I believe the transubstantiation belief focus a lot on the physical part of it, forgetting the important part, which is, spiritual.

John 6; 1 Cor 10: 16-22; 1 Cor 11: 23-29 all testify differently that what you believe about the Eucharist. No where in the Bible does it say that this bread or wine “symbolizes” the body and blood of Jesus. Rather is says that it “is” his body and his blood.

Nonetheless, I don’t believe transubstantiation it is evil or whatever, but I think there should be more worship time on Mass, and that people should stand up when saying the Psalms, at least.

Yahweh bless.

More time worshipping in Mass. Mass lasts about an hour and for that whole period of time, except for the homily or preaching, we are in prayer. From the beginning to the end. That is about 45 minutes exclusively prayer in the mass. I have never experience another Christian service that came close to that. Also how much of the Bible is read in your services? We have readings from the Old Testament, the Psalms, the New Testament letters, and then the Gospel. Five different scripture readings in one service. Then you have quotes used throughout the Mass. There is more Sacred Scripture spoken in on mass than an entire year in an Evangelical service.

 

[guanophore]

Which of the following two assertions is the one that is the most probable:

1) A united witness throughout Christian history - a view of a realist Real Presence that not only matches the grammar of sacred scripture but also takes Jesus' words in the Gospels literally.

Or…

2) A novel view that was seen nowhere for the first eleven centuries and was virtually non-existent after that for another five centuries until a few people like Calvin, Bucer, and Zwingli started proclaiming that everyone before them -- (including Martin Luther interestingly enough) - was wrong. Essentially a view of a symbolic presence that seeks to explain away Jesus' literal words in the Gospels.

I think that # 2 is not entirely accurate. clearly there were people who denied the Real Presence in the early days. They were called “heretics”.

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . 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 that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

And indeed, they continue to perish in their disputes.

 

[joe370]

Hey tester

False dichotomy: as the straw man premise in choice #2 is flawed.

How is it flawed?

If the following is inaccurate please prove it and I will admit that I was wrong:

A novel view that was seen nowhere for the first eleven centuries and was virtually non-existent after that for another five centuries until a few people like Calvin, Bucer, and Zwingli started proclaiming that everyone before them – (including Martin Luther interestingly enough) - was wrong.

I will admit I am wrong regarding the following if you can prove to me that no one has a symbolic interpretation of Jesus’ words regarding the Eucharist:

Essentially a view of a symbolic presence that seeks to explain away Jesus’ literal words in the Gospels.

And in addition from a philosophical view: is Truth determined by the length of time a belief is held?

Who or what can determine truth, for example, when some folks lean toward the symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist, while others lean in the polar opposite direction? Did Jesus leave us with a way to know, with certainty, the truth regarding this issue that has divided Christianity? I know that I was not entrusted with the task of determining truth, and therefore I cannot definitively claim that I am right or that you are wrong.

 

[joe370]

Hey Araninski

Well it depends on what are you referring, most “Bible” Christians believe in the “Real Presence”, as in that:

Matthew 18:20
“For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”

Most believe He is really around us when congregating, at least I do . As for transubstantiation, in the Eucharist (Thanksgiving and Communion, Lord’s Supper), I believe it is symbolic, but it is representing a spiritual action that happens when eating in communion, because:

I certainly respect your choice to embrace the symbolic interpretation of Jesus’ words. Do you believe that Jesus left us with a way to know definitively, whether I am wrong or you are wrong? One of us is absolutely wrong and I know that Jesus did not entrust you or me with the authority to settle the matter once and for all. Or, did Jesus simply leave us with no way to know, with certainty, the truth regarding this very important teaching?

I believe the food and drink He was talking about was spiritual and not physical, I believe the transubstantiation belief focus a lot on the physical part of it, forgetting the important part, which is, spiritual.

Well, you would be wrong to think that. Jesus’ words in John 6 are spirit and they are life as taught by the CC

Nonetheless, I don’t believe transubstantiation it is evil or whatever, but I think there should be more worship time on Mass, and that people should stand up when saying the Psalms, at least.

I would hope that you didn’t think it was evil. I have been to many different churches (denominations) - and the CC worships like no other. They really and truly believe that they eat Jesus’ Body, which is medicine for the soul. If you are right then Christians, since the first century, have been guilty of Eucharistic idolatry. Phew, that sure is a lot of people… I just can conceive of the notion that God would allow His church to derail right from the word go, or ever for that matter. Surely God could and would sustain truth in the church He founded circa AD 33 in Jerusalem on that fateful day - Pentecost until the end of time - yes, no, maybe???

 

[tester]

Hey tester

How is it flawed?

If the following is inaccurate please prove it and I will admit that I was wrong:

A novel view that was seen nowhere for the first eleven centuries and was virtually non-existent after that for another five centuries until a few people like Calvin, Bucer, and Zwingli started proclaiming that everyone before them – (including Martin Luther interestingly enough) - was wrong. …

As you claimed : “nowhere” then all I would have to do is provide one example of “somewhere”

in post # 9 guanophore, with almost 20000 posts says:
note: His comment : very similar to mine in post #5 doesn’t seem to be a red herring.

I think that # 2 is not entirely accurate. clearly there were people who denied the Real Presence in the early days. They were called “heretics”.
.

and in the other active post that you are participating on this subject, Brian Culliton (and his website along with others) has presented the “'novel view” that there were some in the first 11 centuries who believed Jesus’ words in John 6 were symbolic…

regarding:

Who or what can determine truth

Who or what wasn’t my point: please reread what I wrorte:

The point is that the length of time that a belief is held does NOT determine it to be true.
Therefore a statements like the " CC has taught this for 2000 years " cannot be used as the sole proof for a truth.

 

[joe370]

Tester, did Jesus leave the world with a way to know, with certainty, the truth regarding:

This is my body

or

This is a symbol of my body

Yes, no, maybe…

 

[tester]

Tester, did Jesus leave the world with a way to know, with certainty, the truth regarding:

This is my body

or

This is a symbol of my body

Yes, no, maybe…

that’s off topic for this thread and it is being discussed in other threads ( in which you are currently posting )

I’m waiting for the follow up to this:from posts 10 and 12

If the following is inaccurate please prove it and I will admit that I was wrong:

 

[Faunus]

An observation: the mere fact that generation after generation believes something to be true, does not necessarily imply that the object of their belief is covered in the glory of truth.

 

[freerf]

You should ask this question in a non-catholic forum if you want to be challenged. Otherwise you’re just preaching to the choir.

 

[ERose]

in post # 9 guanophore, with almost 20000 posts says:
note: His comment : very similar to mine in post #5 doesn’t seem to be a red herring.

and in the other active post that you are participating on this subject, Brian Culliton (and his website along with others) has presented the “'novel view” that there were some in the first 11 centuries who believed Jesus’ words in John 6 were symbolic…

regarding:

Who or what wasn’t my point: please reread what I wrorte:

The point is that the length of time that a belief is held does NOT determine it to be true.
Therefore a statements like the " CC has taught this for 2000 years " cannot be used as the sole proof for a truth.

The quote from St Ignatius is not a proof that there where people that thought that the Eucharist was symbolic only. That quote is about gnostics that refuse to believe in the Eucharist representing the body and blood of Jesus because in there teaching Jesus didn’t have a real body nor real blood so the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist didn’t make since to them. That is a big difference in theology than what you are proposing.

Historically there is absolutely no proof that I have come across that can be justified that shows there was a significant heresy before the protestant revolt that denied the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. None. One or two people here and there doesn’t count. The Apostles didn’t teach it nor did their disciples after them.

 

[Araninski]

Originally Posted by SunnaB16

Jesus is not just a spirit.
For His Real Presence to be truly Real, He has to be bodily present.
So, after the Consecration, He is fully present: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Total Christ. That`s Who we Catholics receive. A physical act which gives Sanctifying Grace.

Dont downplay the dignity of the human body: its part of us as persons; and its not evil. Were fed Truth through our physical senses.

Holy Communion is a Sacrament.
With each of the seven Sacraments, theres a physical action which validates it: eg water, anointing with oil, the Sign of Absolution. In the Gospels: the bleeding woman TOUCHED our Lords garment; our Lord made a paste out of saliva and dust. Physical acts.

Are you saying the Spirit is not real enough? Did you know the Invisible created the visible? IMO the spirit is more real than the body. After all, it was, is, is going ,and always be the Invisible. The human body is an important part, don’t get me wrong, but are you saying truth is bodily, and not from the Spirit?
As for actions, actions reflect the spirit, through the body, you right, this is what I was saying in the first place,no problem here. You got totally lost from my point. I thought you were answering someone else.

Romans 8:8-12
“Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.”

Love of Yahweh.

 

[Araninski]

Originally Posted by ERose

John 6; 1 Cor 10: 16-22; 1 Cor 11: 23-29 all testify differently that what you believe about the Eucharist. No where in the Bible does it say that this bread or wine “symbolizes” the body and blood of Jesus. Rather is says that it “is” his body and his blood.

More time worshipping in Mass. Mass lasts about an hour and for that whole period of time, except for the homily or preaching, we are in prayer. From the beginning to the end. That is about 45 minutes exclusively prayer in the mass. I have never experience another Christian service that came close to that. Also how much of the Bible is read in your services? We have readings from the Old Testament, the Psalms, the New Testament letters, and then the Gospel. Five different scripture readings in one service. Then you have quotes used throughout the Mass. There is more Sacred Scripture spoken in on mass than an entire year in an Evangelical service.

I am going to be honest, my believe is very hard, for me to explain. I said the Eucharist is symbolic, because symbolizes, what is really taking place. Like I said, I believe His body and blood are spiritual food and drink, then the wine and the bread are symbolizing this, which actually really take place in Communion. I drink from His blood and from His body in a spiritual way, and no, the Spirit is not symbolic, the Spirit is very real . If you can’t understand it, I don’t blame you, as long as you celebrate and do what the Lord told us to do, I am happy, that you are doing what He commanded, after all He is our Lord.

I was talking about the worship, I don’t see much worship time. Every song and psalm lasts like 1 min at best. As for readings, yeah man, we cover up all of the Bible, all of the year, at least in Pentecostal services. I think you shouldn’t say that Evangelicalism is a denomination, but an “identification”. Saying “Evangelical” means that you are conservative as the Bible tells you must, and that you are very much interested in evangelism, that is preaching the Gospel for the saving of souls, you see this as a need. A Catholic can be an evangelical, to put an example.

Yahweh bless you!

 

[_Locke]

Which of the following two assertions is the one that is the most probable:

1) A united witness throughout Christian history - a view of a realist Real Presence that not only matches the grammar of sacred scripture but also takes Jesus' words in the Gospels literally.

Or…

2) A novel view that was seen nowhere for the first eleven centuries and was virtually non-existent after that for another five centuries until a few people like Calvin, Bucer, and Zwingli started proclaiming that everyone before them -- (including Martin Luther interestingly enough) - was wrong. Essentially a view of a symbolic presence that seeks to explain away Jesus' literal words in the Gospels.

False dichotomy