• 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]

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."



did a phrase search and didn't find that in the bible.
 
The older I get, the more it seems to me that most Spiritual Deniers have to spend far more mental energy convincing themselves that they are simply organic machines that ever was required to explore the possibility that they are something more. After a while it's as though they were trying to ignore a color for instance, and claim that it does not exist, even if it's the hue of their shirt.

Only six posts before all the non-belivers are going to hell for not accepting what YOU believe. :roll:
 
Only six posts before all the non-belivers are going to hell for not accepting what YOU believe. :roll:

Not at all. I made no claim to that effect at all. Please limit your reference to the things I assert to things that I actually assert, this will have the added benefit of promoting a calm outlook and increased social skills.

To simplify the point which eluded you: Most Spiritual Deniers of my acquaintance are reminiscent of someone who insists that no one is speaking because they have their fingers in their ears and are humming loudly.


Carry on.
 
did a phrase search and didn't find that in the bible.

Odd, I quoted that straight from John 6. It's the Douay-Rheims version.
 
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.

Can't put everything in every post.

In these verses, Paul admonishes the faithful to take the Lord's Supper seriously (they were using it as an excuse to chow down), to examine their lives and to consider Jesus' death, which Paul says in the verses just before is what we are proclaiming in engaging in the Supper: remembering Jesus's death (body and blood).

How does that make your point?
 
Can't put everything in every post.

In these verses, Paul admonishes the faithful to take the Lord's Supper seriously (they were using it as an excuse to chow down), to examine their lives and to consider Jesus' death, which Paul says in the verses just before is what we are proclaiming in engaging in the Supper: remembering Jesus's death (body and blood).

How does that make your point?

Paul didn't say all of that. He didn't say Jesus' death. He said the body of Christ.
 
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.

I'm asking mainly out of curiosity, attempting to understand what you mean by "substance", since apparently it has nothing to do with everything that makes the bread be bread. I've often wondered if Catholics actually think that the bread turns into human meat in their mouths. Apparently not... but yes at the same time. It doesn't really make sense. And I'm wondering how you reconcile what the scripture says with your own experiences eating pieces of bread in church. By your own admission, it still tastes like bread. It still feels like bread. So what is this "substance" you talk about? Is it essentially the bread's soul? Either way, it makes the transformation anything but self-evident, so your incredulity at people denying it seems bizarre. By your own description, someone who didn't believe it wouldn't be persuaded by their actual experience eating the communion wafer (this is communion we're talking about, right?). Selectively interpreting scripture and ignoring the parts you don't like are par for each of the Abrahamic religions. That's how they vary from sect to sect. Jews of even the same sect famously argue about various meanings. There's a joke that if you lock four rabbis in a room overnight, in the morning you'll have five different interpretations. So I want to know what about this experience makes you think that this magical transformation is so impossible to ignore. From what you've said, it sounds like you're just holding some cognitive dissonance. You know it's really still bread, but you're simply saying that it has a special extra status as human flesh. That's Orwellian doublethink. So how do you square this? What do you taste when you bite it? What about this bread makes it different from bread that really has the "bread substance"?
 
Paul didn't say all of that. He didn't say Jesus' death. He said the body of Christ.

Now who's leaving out verses? --

1 Cor 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.
 
Now who's leaving out verses? --

1 Cor 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.

Why do you find this contradictory? You know that Catholics include this in the Eucharistic Prayer, right? "Hoc facite in meam commemorationem"
 
Why do you find this contradictory? You know that Catholics include this in the Eucharistic Prayer, right? "Hoc facite in meam commemorationem"

There's nothing to contradict except your argument that Ignatius's views govern. Paul says that the Lord's Supper is in remembrance of Jesus (which is exactly what Jesus said), and that it "proclaims" his death. He goes on to say that to take it lightly "sins" against Jesus' "body and blood" (i.e., his death). Nothing about transubstantiation here.

I think Paul knew better than Ignatius. So, so much for Ignatius's mystical views of the eucharist -- I'll stick with Paul.
 
I'm asking mainly out of curiosity, attempting to understand what you mean by "substance", since apparently it has nothing to do with everything that makes the bread be bread. I've often wondered if Catholics actually think that the bread turns into human meat in their mouths. Apparently not... but yes at the same time. It doesn't really make sense. And I'm wondering how you reconcile what the scripture says with your own experiences eating pieces of bread in church. By your own admission, it still tastes like bread. It still feels like bread. So what is this "substance" you talk about? Is it essentially the bread's soul?

Yes, it is something along those lines.

Either way, it makes the transformation anything but self-evident, so your incredulity at people denying it seems bizarre. By your own description, someone who didn't believe it wouldn't be persuaded by their actual experience eating the communion wafer (this is communion we're talking about, right?). Selectively interpreting scripture and ignoring the parts you don't like are par for each of the Abrahamic religions. That's how they vary from sect to sect. Jews of even the same sect famously argue about various meanings. There's a joke that if you lock four rabbis in a room overnight, in the morning you'll have five different interpretations. So I want to know what about this experience makes you think that this magical transformation is so impossible to ignore. From what you've said, it sounds like you're just holding some cognitive dissonance. You know it's really still bread, but you're simply saying that it has a special extra status as human flesh.

It is no longer bread. It has the physical properties of bread, but it is no longer bread.

And the only people I am incredulous at are the atheists who come in here and trash an argument that wasn't even meant to convince them. This was meant for those who accept scripture, and the scripture is plainly evident for those willing to see it.


That's Orwellian doublethink. So how do you square this? What do you taste when you bite it? What about this bread makes it different from bread that really has the "bread substance"?

I can't make an argument from physics, because it doesn't make sense with a mechanistic view of the world. The substance is separate from its properties.
 
There's nothing to contradict except your argument that Ignatius's views govern. Paul says that the Lord's Supper is in remembrance of Jesus (which is exactly what Jesus said), and that it "proclaims" his death. He goes on to say that to take it lightly "sins" against Jesus' "body and blood" (i.e., his death). Nothing about transubstantiation here.

I think Paul knew better than Ignatius. So, so much for Ignatius's mystical views of the eucharist -- I'll stick with Paul.

Why would He make such a big deal about it if it was just a memorial? Why would Jesus not correct the Jews for taking Him literally? Why would he use the verb "chew" instead of something better suited for a metaphor like the word "consume"?
 
And the only people I am incredulous at are the atheists who come in here and trash an argument that wasn't even meant to convince them. This was meant for those who accept scripture, and the scripture is plainly evident for those willing to see it.
Seems pretty clear that a lot of Protestants are also skeptical -- and most likely on the basis of an interpretation of scripture.

And the scripture really is not that decisive. If you want to read it that way, you can. But John 6 is certainly not a highly specific set of instructions with an accompanying theology, replete with diagrams and recipes for communal wafers. It is also very unlikely that Jesus knew anything of "substance" in the Aristotelian sense, he was hardly a student of Greek philosophy.
 
Seems pretty clear that a lot of Protestants are also skeptical -- and most likely on the basis of an interpretation of scripture.

And the scripture really is not that decisive. If you want to read it that way, you can. But John 6 is certainly not a highly specific set of instructions with an accompanying theology, replete with diagrams and recipes for communal wafers. It is also very unlikely that Jesus knew anything of "substance" in the Aristotelian sense, he was hardly a student of Greek philosophy.

I didn't say that the form was outlined, just that the Eucharist being the body of Christ is indisputable upon closer reading of John 6. If you have an issue with the arguments, bring them forth.
 
Why would He make such a big deal about it if it was just a memorial? Why would Jesus not correct the Jews for taking Him literally? Why would he use the verb "chew" instead of something better suited for a metaphor like the word "consume"?

Read John 6 ... specifically this point

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.

Look at how John is written, that sort of metaphor, i.e. something physical representing something spiritual is all over the place in the Gospel. He clarifies in that verse, it's the spirit that's important, this is a common feature of John, he says something people don't get, then he clarifies to his disciples privately.

But you can't take John 6 seperately from the synoptics and their description of the last supper ... Nor can you take it seperately from Paul.

I can't make an argument from physics, because it doesn't make sense with a mechanistic view of the world. The substance is separate from its properties.

As was said before, these notions of substance and properties are not biblical they are from greek philosophy (as you admitted), Jesus, Paul, The apostles, Luke and so on wouldn't have known about Aristotle, nor would they have cared, it's the later Fathers who wanted Christianity to be "academically respectable" who tried to make it compatible with greek philosophy.

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

That's the big issue ... Sola Scriptura and Tota Scriptura .... I understand the Catholic argument against Sola-Scriptura, but it doesn't fly, apostolic succession was not apostlic ... or from Jesus, Jesus said "by their fruits you will know them" not "by their succession." And Paul states that all scripture is "God breathed" not all apostles, much less successors of apostles.
 
Read John 6 ... specifically this point

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.

Look at how John is written, that sort of metaphor, i.e. something physical representing something spiritual is all over the place in the Gospel. He clarifies in that verse, it's the spirit that's important, this is a common feature of John, he says something people don't get, then he clarifies to his disciples privately.

But you can't take John 6 seperately from the synoptics and their description of the last supper ... Nor can you take it seperately from Paul.

Why would He lose so many followers over this if it was just a metaphor? If it's just a metaphor, then what's so difficult about it? Nothing. People left because He was being literal.

As was said before, these notions of substance and properties are not biblical they are from greek philosophy (as you admitted), Jesus, Paul, The apostles, Luke and so on wouldn't have known about Aristotle, nor would they have cared, it's the later Fathers who wanted Christianity to be "academically respectable" who tried to make it compatible with greek philosophy.

This philosophy is used to explain what happens at the Eucharistic Prayer.

That's the big issue ... Sola Scriptura and Tota Scriptura .... I understand the Catholic argument against Sola-Scriptura, but it doesn't fly, apostolic succession was not apostlic ... or from Jesus, Jesus said "by their fruits you will know them" not "by their succession." And Paul states that all scripture is "God breathed" not all apostles, much less successors of apostles.

"You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church"

What do you think that quote means?
 
I didn't say that the form was outlined, just that the Eucharist being the body of Christ is indisputable upon closer reading of John 6. If you have an issue with the arguments, bring them forth.
And again, I already have.

1) The text, and context, is more than ambiguous enough to allow for a metaphorical reading.
2) The total lack of detail about what has become an elaborate ritual also indicates a metaphorical reading. (Why wouldn't Jesus outline the ritual in detail? Why use language vague enough to be misinterpreted?)
3) It should be quite clear that one cannot be saved merely by participating in the ritual of the Eucharist.
4) Your "pro-Eucharist" sources are obviously Catholic, and are obviously going to be biased in favor of that reading.

And a new bonus point! Apparently, only 30% of Catholics believe that the wine is actually transformed into blood, and wafer into flesh. 29% believe it's merely symbolic. (Library : Is the Eucharist Really Christ's Body and Blood? - Catholic Culture)

So perhaps a better question is: Why don't a large group of Catholics believe in the Real Presence?
 
Why would He lose so many followers over this if it was just a metaphor? If it's just a metaphor, then what's so difficult about it? Nothing. People left because He was being literal.
Erm... I don't think anyone left the Catholic Church because of the Eucharist. They left because it had become corrupt, subject to schisms, greedy and abusive in the sale of indulgences, steeped in politics, tolerant of randy priests and nuns, and even hired armies of mercenaries to seize territories.
 
Why would He lose so many followers over this if it was just a metaphor? If it's just a metaphor, then what's so difficult about it? Nothing. People left because He was being literal.

Because they didn't understand him ... this is not uncommon, the same thing happened with the whole tearing down the temple and rebuilding it in 3 days, he said it as a metaphore, people took it as literal, he explains to his disciples what it really means.

This philosophy is used to explain what happens at the Eucharistic Prayer.

I get that, but it isn't biblical.

"You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church"

What do you think that quote means?

Matthew 16:
17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter,[d] and on this rock[e] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

Notice he says "on this rock," not "on you" and "the gates of Hades will not prevail against "it," not "you" (Peter died remember).

So what is the "it," well look at the context.

15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah,[c] the Son of the living God.”

It's that context. Its the fact of Jesus' Messiahship, there is nothing in that about any apostolic succession.
 
And again, I already have.

1) The text, and context, is more than ambiguous enough to allow for a metaphorical reading.

Then argue against the points that I made.

2) The total lack of detail about what has become an elaborate ritual also indicates a metaphorical reading. (Why wouldn't Jesus outline the ritual in detail? Why use language vague enough to be misinterpreted?)

Only if you ignore tradition, which, conveniently enough, most Protestants do.

3) It should be quite clear that one cannot be saved merely by participating in the ritual of the Eucharist.

Who ever said that this alone would bring salvation?

4) Your "pro-Eucharist" sources are obviously Catholic, and are obviously going to be biased in favor of that reading.

This is not an argument.

And a new bonus point! Apparently, only 30% of Catholics believe that the wine is actually transformed into blood, and wafer into flesh. 29% believe it's merely symbolic. (Library : Is the Eucharist Really Christ's Body and Blood? - Catholic Culture)

So perhaps a better question is: Why don't a large group of Catholics believe in the Real Presence?

Why do a large group of catholics abort? Why do a large group of catholics contracept? This has no bearing on the validity of the interpretation; it is a red herring.
 
Erm... I don't think anyone left the Catholic Church because of the Eucharist. They left because it had become corrupt, subject to schisms, greedy and abusive in the sale of indulgences, steeped in politics, tolerant of randy priests and nuns, and even hired armies of mercenaries to seize territories.

Again, a red herring. I was referring to Jesus' followers in John 6 who left Him because of what He was saying.
 
Because they didn't understand him ... this is not uncommon, the same thing happened with the whole tearing down the temple and rebuilding it in 3 days, he said it as a metaphore, people took it as literal, he explains to his disciples what it really means.

They misunderstood Him, yes, but they did not leave Him, and many more understood after He rose from the dead.

20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name.[d] 24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people. 25 He did not need any testimony about mankind, for he knew what was in each person.

Matthew 16:
17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter,[d] and on this rock[e] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

Notice he says "on this rock," not "on you" and "the gates of Hades will not prevail against "it," not "you" (Peter died remember).

So what is the "it," well look at the context.

15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah,[c] the Son of the living God.”

It's that context. Its the fact of Jesus' Messiahship, there is nothing in that about any apostolic succession.

So Jesus just said "You are Peter" for the hell of it? I'm pretty sure that Simon-Peter already knew his name.
 
I'm better versed in the Bible and Christian philosophy than most Christians.

Now, how can you claim it is philosophy when the Catholic Church specifically states that it is NOT merely in the mind of the believer.

Only Believers can know the full meaning of the Bible. Just saying.
 
Back
Top Bottom