View Single Post
Old 06-29-07, 01:34 PM   #15 (permalink)
niftydrifty
thrifty

 
niftydrifty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Last Online: Yesterday 04:36 PM
Posts: 3,413
Thanks: 464
Thanked 767 Times in 489 Posts

Awards:
True Debate Winner:  Winner of True Debate #5 True Debate Winner:  True Debate Winner 

Thread Starter Re: niftydrifty vs. Felicity: The Eucharist, real or symbolic?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Felicity View Post
When I say the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ is LITERALLY present in the Eucharist. I mean it's his flesh--it's NOT symbolically his flesh--it IS his flesh. There are symbolic associations to the liturgy, but the thing that was bread and wine is NO LONGER bread and wine after consecration, but it still appears physically bread and wine, yet it is literally Jesus' Body and Blood.

Further, the disciples in John 6 who heard Jesus say that His Flesh is True Food--understood him literally. To eat someone's flesh was to ridicule and debase if was meant symbolically--the disciples knew he was not speaking symbolically or metaphorically--they KNEW he was saying they would have to EAT HIM--that is why many left. WE know Jesus meant it literally because Jesus let them leave without clarification. Jesus would not allow a silly misunderstanding to confuse someone to the point that they would turn away from him--Jesus explained errors in understanding when it caused people to question his divinity.

I mean literally in terms of the disciples heard Jesus words and took them in the DENOTATIVE sense.
It is really, literally, His flesh? the same molecules that inhabited Christ's flesh are now present in the bread that you eat?

ps. thanks!
__________________
"I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." - Bill Kristol
niftydrifty is offline   Reply With Quote