• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How can you deny the Real Presence? [W:180]

phattonez said:
John 6



Continuing on about why this is not a metaphor:



Another reason to take it literally:



And it doesn't end there. We also have the views of the early Church and what they thought:



Christ in the Eucharist | Catholic Answers

Face it Protestants, you are denying something that Christ obviously saw to be very important. How can you deny it when presented with all of this evidence?
Click to expand...

No - Trogo means to chew SLOWLY - and was used figuratively within speech in that era.

This explains it: Greek Word Studies: Eat

Do you interpret everything said in the Bible SO literally? How does that log in your eye feel? (just an example of how things are not always meant to be literal.)
 
head of joaquin said:
I got waylaid and didn't have time to delete the last line. Obviously the passage is about the Lord's Supper. But its meaning is summed up in Jesus' request that we do in remembrance of him, not that it has a mystical meaning beyond that. The comments that the bread is his flesh and the wine his blood is just a metaphorical way of saying -- do this in remembrance of me.
Click to expand...

I'll still wait for you to respond to my actual points, because this challenges none of them.
 
Visbek said:
Just so I'm clear: Do you believe that the Eucharist literally transforms the wafer into divine flesh, and wine into divine blood?

Or do you view it instead as a critical ritual, where the material objects of wafer and wine do not change?
Click to expand...

It literally transforms the bread and wine into flesh and blood. The appearance of bread and wine remains, but the substance has changed. I am using the Aristotelian definition of substance here.
 
calamity said:
Of course it's metaphor. In the end, it's not body of christ or a cup of his blood, just some crappy dry bread and cheap red wine.
Click to expand...

I'm glad to see that you've responded to my points.
 
obvious Child said:
A biologist that believes in magic?

You just proved Eco was right.

The fact that he's not a Christian is irrelevant. You cannot defend your arguments.
Click to expand...

jimbo said:
This is a circular argument. We know the bible is true because the bible says so, We know all this is true because Christ said so, and we know Christ is correct because the bible says so.
Click to expand...

I did not intend this thread to be made for atheists because this argument assumes you believe in God and also Christ. If you do not hold these beliefs, then that is an issue for another thread. Please don't concern yourself with this because obviously quoting Bible verses and early Church fathers isn't meant to convert non-believers.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
No - Trogo means to chew SLOWLY - and was used figuratively within speech in that era.

This explains it: Greek Word Studies: Eat

Do you interpret everything said in the Bible SO literally? How does that log in your eye feel? (just an example of how things are not always meant to be literal.)
Click to expand...

That's a word used violently when used figuratively, see Micah 3:3. "who eat my people's flesh, strip off their skin and break their bones in pieces; who chop them up like meat for the pan, like flesh for the pot?"
 
phattonez said:
I did not intend this thread to be made for atheists because this argument assumes you believe in God and also Christ. If you do not hold these beliefs, then that is an issue for another thread. Please don't concern yourself with this because obviously quoting Bible verses and early Church fathers isn't meant to convert non-believers.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was responding to a thread titled How can you deny the the presence? My answer, because it is a circular argument.

If you want only a given group to respond, or have no desire for differing opinions, perhaps you should so state.
 
jimbo said:
Sorry, I was responding to a thread titled How can you deny the the presence? My answer, because it is a circular argument.

If you want only a given group to respond, or have no desire for differing opinions, perhaps you should so state.
Click to expand...

In the OP I clearly stated that this was directed to Protestants.
 
phattonez said:
It literally transforms the bread and wine into flesh and blood. The appearance of bread and wine remains, but the substance has changed. I am using the Aristotelian definition of substance here.
Click to expand...

So what does change? The taste? The calorie count? Will drinking lots of the wine turned to blood not get you drunk? Will the bread turned to flesh provide you with protein but not carbs? And suppose you do all the things that you need to do to trigger this change but then don't eat it? Are you saying that you could then show everyone some human flesh that still looks like bread but is composed of the elements and chemicals that would make up human muscle, as opposed to those of wheat?

I'm curious as to what you're saying actually happens. And what is this definition of substance you're using? If it doesn't involve any physical change than it seems very easy to "deny the presence", since there would be no presence. There would have to be some observable change while you're eating it. So what change are you saying there is?
 
Paschendale said:
So what does change? The taste? The calorie count? Will drinking lots of the wine turned to blood not get you drunk? Will the bread turned to flesh provide you with protein but not carbs? And suppose you do all the things that you need to do to trigger this change but then don't eat it? Are you saying that you could then show everyone some human flesh that still looks like bread but is composed of the elements and chemicals that would make up human muscle, as opposed to those of wheat?
Click to expand...

No, the properties of bread and wine are still there. What changes is the substance. This is Aristotelianism, which doesn't mesh with our modern mechanical view of the world.

I'm curious as to what you're saying actually happens. And what is this definition of substance you're using? If it doesn't involve any physical change than it seems very easy to "deny the presence", since there would be no presence. There would have to be some observable change while you're eating it. So what change are you saying there is?
Click to expand...

See the Wikipedia article on transsubstantiation, it explains it fairly clearly.
 
phattonez said:
It literally transforms the bread and wine into flesh and blood. The appearance of bread and wine remains, but the substance has changed. I am using the Aristotelian definition of substance here.
Click to expand...
OK. So where in the gospels does it empower Catholic priests to change the substance of the crackers and wine?

I don't see any indication that Christ left specific instructions on how to perform the ritual, or restricting it to priests and churches -- which actually didn't exist during his lifetime.

I also am not really seeing how John 6:25-53 definitively proves that Jesus was speaking literally. E.g. lines like "Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die" at least provides a justification for asserting that he meant his teachings were the "bread" that would grant eternal life (being saved).

Think of it this way. Imagine that you have a non-believer sits through a Catholic Mass, participates in the Eucharist, and leaves without changing his mind about Christianity. Will he be saved? I'd guess that Catholics will say "no."
 
phattonez said:
No, the properties of bread and wine are still there. What changes is the substance. This is Aristotelianism, which doesn't mesh with our modern mechanical view of the world.

See the Wikipedia article on transsubstantiation, it explains it fairly clearly.
Click to expand...

So, nothing actually changes... just the "substance", which apparently has nothing to do with the molecules and atoms that make up the item. It will taste like bread and wine, it will interact with your body like it was bread and wine. It has the nutrients of bread and wine. But its "substance" is different? Rather then refer me to an article, why don't you explain what this "substance" is, and how that changes what something is without changing what it is.

I can see why otherwise skeptical people who aren't already determined to believe this would "deny the real presence", since no such presence seems to be present.
 
Paschendale said:
I can see why otherwise skeptical people who aren't already determined to believe this would "deny the real presence", since no such presence seems to be present.
Click to expand...
Let's keep in mind that this particular interpretation started in the 11th century, and rejections thereof in the 15th or 16th centuries. During both periods of time, there was a lot less skepticism of spiritual concepts and claims.

Even today, lots of people accept a type of Cartesian dualism, wherein the material and spiritual exist in wholly distinct ontological realms. Despite the ways this overtly violates all sorts of laws of physics, many people still assume it's the case, as typified by asserting that "humans have immaterial souls."

If you accept that humans have immaterial and immortal souls, transubstantiation shouldn't pose a metaphysical problem.

If someone is religious and is going to reject the Eucharist, there are presumably theological, doctrinal and historical reasons.
 
Visbek said:
OK. So where in the gospels does it empower Catholic priests to change the substance of the crackers and wine?

I don't see any indication that Christ left specific instructions on how to perform the ritual, or restricting it to priests and churches -- which actually didn't exist during his lifetime.
Click to expand...

Catholics don't believe in sola scriptura. That said, most of the ideas of the priesthood come from the old Jewish faith.

I also am not really seeing how John 6:25-53 definitively proves that Jesus was speaking literally. E.g. lines like "Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die" at least provides a justification for asserting that he meant his teachings were the "bread" that would grant eternal life (being saved).
Click to expand...

He is speaking about Himself. I don't see why this repudiates a literal translation.

Think of it this way. Imagine that you have a non-believer sits through a Catholic Mass, participates in the Eucharist, and leaves without changing his mind about Christianity. Will he be saved? I'd guess that Catholics will say "no."
Click to expand...

It's not up to us to decide who will be saved, but Jesus' words in John 6 tell you how important He thought that this was.
 
Paschendale said:
So, nothing actually changes... just the "substance", which apparently has nothing to do with the molecules and atoms that make up the item. It will taste like bread and wine, it will interact with your body like it was bread and wine. It has the nutrients of bread and wine. But its "substance" is different? Rather then refer me to an article, why don't you explain what this "substance" is, and how that changes what something is without changing what it is.
Click to expand...

Here is an entire Wikipedia article on the subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

Using the example in the article, we can look at the statement snow is white. Now we can perceive snow, the actual substance, but we cannot perceive whiteness in and of itself. We can think of white things, but not white itself. The substance itself is snow, but the whiteness is one of its properties.

I can see why otherwise skeptical people who aren't already determined to believe this would "deny the real presence", since no such presence seems to be present.
Click to expand...

Again, there is a reason that this isn't directed toward non-Christians since the entire argument is based on the words of Christ. There's no point in arguing this with anyone who doesn't believe what He says.
 
Visbek said:
Let's keep in mind that this particular interpretation started in the 11th century, and rejections thereof in the 15th or 16th centuries. During both periods of time, there was a lot less skepticism of spiritual concepts and claims.
Click to expand...

Absolute nonsense, as I showed in the OP. This idea of the transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood has been around since at least Ignatius of Antioch.

Even today, lots of people accept a type of Cartesian dualism, wherein the material and spiritual exist in wholly distinct ontological realms. Despite the ways this overtly violates all sorts of laws of physics, many people still assume it's the case, as typified by asserting that "humans have immaterial souls."

If you accept that humans have immaterial and immortal souls, transubstantiation shouldn't pose a metaphysical problem.
Click to expand...

The idea of immaterial and immortal souls goes along with Christianity, doesn't it?
 
obvious Child said:
Did you even read eco's posts to you?

You just admitted you cannot defend your arguments.
Click to expand...

Again, if you want to have a debate on Christianity itself, that's fine. However, this thread is not meant for non-believers, so take your snark elsewhere.
 
phattonez said:
Using the example in the article, we can look at the statement snow is white. Now we can perceive snow, the actual substance, but we cannot perceive whiteness in and of itself. We can think of white things, but not white itself. The substance itself is snow, but the whiteness is one of its properties.

Again, there is a reason that this isn't directed toward non-Christians since the entire argument is based on the words of Christ. There's no point in arguing this with anyone who doesn't believe what He says.
Click to expand...

I'm asking how you can think that if the bread remains bread. Your example about snow has nothing to do with actual snow. So, the question still remains. Nothing really changes, just a "substance", which appears to be nothing more than a classification that is arbitrarily assigned to it by us. What about the bread or wine changes outside of in the person's mind? You are suggesting that this is self-evident. Not just that this is your interpretation of scripture, but that this is a self-evident truth. Or did your OP not actually mean that?
 
phattonez said:
Absolute nonsense, as I showed in the OP. This idea of the transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood has been around since at least Ignatius of Antioch.
Click to expand...

The apostle Paul precedes Ignatius of course, and his rendition of the Lord's Supper appears to be much less dramatic. It's about remembering Jesus ("proclaiming his death"). This just doesn't seem particularly mystical.

I Corinthians 11 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
John 6



Continuing on about why this is not a metaphor:



Another reason to take it literally:



And it doesn't end there. We also have the views of the early Church and what they thought:



Christ in the Eucharist | Catholic Answers

Face it Protestants, you are denying something that Christ obviously saw to be very important. How can you deny it when presented with all of this evidence?
Click to expand...





I participate in what is referred to variously as the Lord's Supper or Communion, and I assure you that, Protestant though I am, I take it as a very serious spiritual matter, to be approached with a solemn mind and careful prayer.


As to literal transubstantiation... to be honest I haven't thought that much about it. The cracker is still a cracker when I swallow it, as is the wine (or grape juice at some churches), as far as I can tell, though I consider it to be spiritually far more than mere bread and drink within that context.


Every Protestant church I've ever been in conducts this practice from time to time, and I've yet to attend a church where it is taken with anything less than great seriousness... but Jack Chick Tracts are the only one I've ever known to make a huge issue out of literal vs symbolic transubstantiation, and Chick tracts overdramatizes pretty much everything...


Do you really feel this is that big of an issue? I've always kind of felt that it was more of a fine-point issue for theologians to argue over than something the layman should sweat bullets about....
 
Goshin said:
Do you really feel this is that big of an issue? I've always kind of felt that it was more of a fine-point issue for theologians to argue over than something the layman should sweat bullets about....
Click to expand...

Yes, I do take it to be a very big issue, because of this quote:

"Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."
 
Paschendale said:
I'm asking how you can think that if the bread remains bread. Your example about snow has nothing to do with actual snow. So, the question still remains. Nothing really changes, just a "substance", which appears to be nothing more than a classification that is arbitrarily assigned to it by us. What about the bread or wine changes outside of in the person's mind? You are suggesting that this is self-evident. Not just that this is your interpretation of scripture, but that this is a self-evident truth. Or did your OP not actually mean that?
Click to expand...

The properties of the bread remain, but the actual substance of the bread has changed.

I am suggesting that, outside of the philosophy discussion, that this is something that is only proved through scripture, so if you don't follow scripture, this argument is irrelevant.
 
head of joaquin said:
The apostle Paul precedes Ignatius of course, and his rendition of the Lord's Supper appears to be much less dramatic. It's about remembering Jesus ("proclaiming his death"). This just doesn't seem particularly mystical.

I Corinthians 11 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Click to expand...

Continuing on:

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

Conveniently these latter verses were not included in your quote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom