• 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]

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?

Um. So Jesus's disciples were EATING the body of Jesus and Drinking his blood? Literally? Did he cut slivers off? Or did they consume bread and wine?
 
Um. So Jesus's disciples were EATING the body of Jesus and Drinking his blood? Literally? Did he cut slivers off? Or did they consume bread and wine?

Literally. It is the body, blood, soul, and divinity, under the appearance of bread and wine.
 
Then literally it is a metaphor.

When the Jews ate the lamb at Passover, was that a metaphor?
Was the Miracle of Lanciano just a metaphor?
 
And? Are you suggesting Jesus was a baby sheep? A lamb? Or do you think that is a metaphor?

He was literally the sacrifice offered for our sins. Just as the Jews literally ate their sacrificial lamb, so Jesus tells us that we should eat Him in John 6.

Idk how this matters.

In the miracle it was not only the substance that changed to the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, but also the accidents. The bread and wine became flesh and blood not only in substance but also appearance.
 
During the Passover, when God established a new covenant with the Jews, He required that at Passover a lamb be slaughtered and entirely consumed. The ancient Jews held to this and slaughtered a lamb every morning and every evening in the temple. Remember that: the Passover lamb had to be entirely slaughtered.

Jesus is the Lamb of God, and it is not a coincidence that the Last Supper and His Passion coincide with Passover. Jesus is establishing a new covenant, and is the perfect sacrifice that no animal could ever be. He told us clearly:

Matthew 26 said:
Now as they were eating,[d] Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the[e] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Exodus 12 said:
3 Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this month they shall take every man a lamb according to their fathers’ houses, a lamb for a household
6 and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs in the evening.
8 They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it.

The Jews physically ate their lamb of sacrifice, and did it frequently. Jesus told us to do the same with Him.

1 Corinthians 11 said:
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

Tell me, if it is just a symbol, then how can you profane the body and blood of the Lord? Maybe you would profane the sacrifice of Jesus, maybe, but His body and blood?
 
This question also gets into the issue of how exactly we should worship. See Psalm 116:

12 What shall I render to the Lord
for all his bounty to me?
13 I will lift up the cup of salvation
and call on the name of the Lord,
 
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?




It's not "evidence" it is theology....."ology" meaning a study.

Do you insist that Jesus, the savior, who forgives us ours sins would say "I don't know you" because you got your theology wrong? What then of the early Popes who married when it was later deemed no clergy can? What then of the Popes who got it wrong and had people tortured? Will these God's direct representatives be granted the Kingdom and every Baptist, Anglican, Alliance, etc. be denied. What about the goons who denied the world the works of Galileo, and then after becoming less ignorant themselves centuries later said "OK, they're cool. All those people we excommunicated are, according to our rules, in hell because of that, so what?

And what of the Roman Church's interpretation that one must be free of sin, having confessed, in order to receive Communion, while it is recorded in the first Holy Communion that every one of those apostles had not only sinned but would again that very day, one for silver and one "before the **** crows", and upon whom Jesus built his Church?

As the Roman church continues to try to impose its will, I strongly suggest this Pope must first make amends on behalf of those who came before for having hidden and enabled decades of systemic sexual abuse.

Before the Roman church starts making grandiose declarations about beliefs and declaring those who are led in another direction "heretic" hey need recall the words "who soever harms one of these little ones....." and make their own peace with Him.
 
Last edited:
It's not "evidence" it is theology....."ology" meaning a study.

Do you insist that Jesus, the savior, who forgives us ours sins would say "I don't know you" because you got your theology wrong?

If you follow heresy openly and with full knowledge then yes. What constitutes full knowledge, though, is up to God. I do not know the hearts of men.

What then of the early Popes who married when it was later deemed no clergy can?

This is not dogma. It is a discipline. Eastern Catholic Churches allow married priests and are in full communion with Rome.

What then of the Popes who got it wrong and had people tortured?

Popes are infallible, not impeccable, but I believe that you're straying from theology on this point, aren't you?

Will these God's direct representatives be granted the Kingdom and every Baptist, Anglican, Alliance, etc. be denied.

That is not up to me to decide. However, wouldn't you want to get as much right as possible? God is merciful, but He is also just.

What about the goons who denied the world the works of Galileo, and then after becoming less ignorant themselves centuries later said "OK, they're cool. All those people we excommunicated are, according to our rules, in hell because of that, so what?

Galileo pushed forward his theory as fact when he did not have the evidence yet to prove it. That was the problem. He also instigated Rome on more than one occasion.

The Galileo Controversy | Catholic Answers

And what of the Roman Church's interpretation that one must be free of sin, having confessed, in order to receive Communion, while it is recorded in the first Holy Communion that every one of those apostles had not only sinned but would again that very day, one for silver and one "before the **** crows", and upon whom Jesus built his Church?

Are we to assume that they had not received forgiveness prior to this meal? And so what if they sinned after? Even sinning before, you would not be denied Communion for that. The only ones denied Communion are those who are not baptized and those who openly flaunt Church law, not personal sinners (though they should only receive after confession). You may want to brush up on your Canon Law.

As the Roman church continues to try to impose its will, I strongly suggest this Pope must first make amends on behalf of those who came before for having hidden and enabled decades of systemic sexual abuse.

Before the Roman church starts making grandiose declarations about beliefs and declaring those who are led in another direction "heretic" hey need recall the words "who soever harms one of these little ones....." and make their own peace with Him.

Off-topic. Completely irrelevant to the point I'm making.
 
107 A.D. St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch: “Take care, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to show forth the unity of His blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, along with the priests and deacons, my fellow-servants.”

And speaking about heretics: "From the Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ."

In A.D. 107. This is mere decades after the death and resurrection of Christ.
 
1 Corinthians 10: 15 I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation[e] in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation[f] in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?

"A participation in the blood of Christ." Not a symbol of the blood of Christ, but a participation in it. The same goes with the bread.

"There is one bread." There is just one bread; there is just one Body of Christ. We who partake of it become part of the one Body of Christ. "The one bread". It is not just any bread, but the one bread.

"Partners in the altar" Remember that Paul here is talking about sacrifices to pagan gods. Look at how he is comparing the Eucharist to the sacrificies offered to gods. The Eucharist is a sacrifice! It is Christ's sacrifice offered again and always on our behalf. This is no mere symbol; this is Jesus renewing the covenant with us by offering us His flesh.
 
What happens when you translate the name of the city of Jesus' birth?

Bethlehem: House of Bread | Desiring God

Bethlehem means house of bread.

Jesus was born in a manger. What are mangers used for? Feeding animals.

Jesus is the bread come down from Heaven. He offers us His body, blood, soul, and divinity. The evidence is all over the Bible.
 
How many billions has the Catholic Corporation Inc. spent manipulating world power structure? How much does it cost annually to staff and maintain their headquarters in Rome? Where would Jesus sleep there if he were alive today and what would his salary be?
 
Back
Top Bottom