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

[ecofarm]

:roll:

The point is: the promise of special knowledge means little when most believers know almost nothing.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

The point is: the promise of special knowledge means little when most believers know almost nothing.

My point was you claim to be so informed on the Bible, but if you aren't a believer.....You don't really know anything at all.

 

[ecofarm]

My point was you claim to be so informed on the Bible, but if you aren't a believer.....You don't really know anything at all.

I can see everything you can, without believing in a deity or supernatural god. My faith does not rest on impossible events or objects.

 

[Visbek]

Then argue against the points that I made.

Again... I already have. I've presented a fairly concise reading which indicates why a metaphorical interpretation is potentially valid.

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

1) Protestants have their own traditions.
2) Merely stating that "tradition is right because it's tradition" is not a valid argument.

Who ever said that this alone would bring salvation?

Jesus did.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.... Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

If you're going to interpret his statements in a hyper-literal fashion, then it sure looks like Jesus is saying "participate in the Eucharist and you will be saved." I mean, I don't see any qualifiers there, do you? Or additional instructions to follow other principles?

In for a penny....

This is not an argument.

It's an accusation of bias. Take it as you like.

 

[Visbek]

Again, a red herring. I was referring to Jesus' followers in John 6 who left Him because of what He was saying.

Thanks for the clarification.

And yes, the departure of the disciples is certainly compatible with a metaphorical reading. A Jewish miracle worker in that era who claimed to be a direct descendant of Yahweh, and offers eternal life. And what does he say to the disciples before they leave?

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.

And again, Simon Peter refers to the words of eternal life. Not literature, not magical spell, not divine flesh or divine blood. Words.

Again, my point is NOT to say "there is no possible way the Catholic interpretation is correct." My point is that the text is ambiguous enough to validate several different interpretations. There really shouldn't be much doubt on that point.

Thus, and again, it seems to me that this is not about your attempt to understand why someone holds a different view. It's about you dumping on people because of a difference in doctrine. (You really should not be surprised if that type of contemptuous attitude winds up getting reflected right back at you.)

 

[Visbek]

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

There is no such necessity, unless you are going to claim some sort of knowledge -- not emotion, not feeling, but information -- that is only accessible via revelation. That certainly doesn't fit a Catholic interpretation.

I might add that there are quite a few scholars of Christianity who are themselves religious -- and still reject the idea of the Eucharist as a literal consumption of the flesh and blood of Christ. John Crossan comes to mind.

 

[phattonez]

Again... I already have. I've presented a fairly concise reading which indicates why a metaphorical interpretation is potentially valid.

Not really, since you haven't contested the points that I raised, or at least not convincingly.

1) Protestants have their own traditions.
2) Merely stating that "tradition is right because it's tradition" is not a valid argument.

1) Because they didn't like the Catholic ones and so made up their own.
2) Who made that argument?!

Jesus did.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.... Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

If you're going to interpret his statements in a hyper-literal fashion, then it sure looks like Jesus is saying "participate in the Eucharist and you will be saved." I mean, I don't see any qualifiers there, do you? Or additional instructions to follow other principles?

In for a penny....

Though remember what Paul says that anyone who receives unworthily brings damnation upon himself.

It's an accusation of bias. Take it as you like.

Are you not biased? Who cares, give me a break. This doesn't deal with the argument.

 

[phattonez]

Thanks for the clarification.

And yes, the departure of the disciples is certainly compatible with a metaphorical reading. A Jewish miracle worker in that era who claimed to be a direct descendant of Yahweh, and offers eternal life. And what does he say to the disciples before they leave?

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.

And again, Simon Peter refers to the words of eternal life. Not literature, not magical spell, not divine flesh or divine blood. Words.

Again, my point is NOT to say "there is no possible way the Catholic interpretation is correct." My point is that the text is ambiguous enough to validate several different interpretations. There really shouldn't be much doubt on that point.

Thus, and again, it seems to me that this is not about your attempt to understand why someone holds a different view. It's about you dumping on people because of a difference in doctrine. (You really should not be surprised if that type of contemptuous attitude winds up getting reflected right back at you.)

It was this specific teaching about the Eucharist that they left Him about. Other than this they were His followers; this is what caused them to leave. So please, try again.

 

[Logicman]

Originally Posted by phattonez: Who ever said that this alone would bring salvation?

Jesus did.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.... Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

People don't sincerely partake of the Lord's Supper unless they're first believers, so that's inherent in the Supper. And since they're believers, they're already justified by faith (Ephesians 2:8-9).

 

[head of joaquin]

The point is: the promise of special knowledge means little when most believers know almost nothing.

The irony is davidtaylor's views of special knowledge are gnostic in origin -- a heresy according to the early church theologians. He seems blissfully unaware of that.

 

[Visbek]

Not really, since you haven't contested the points that I raised, or at least not convincingly.

*sigh*

I'm not trying to convince you that "the Eucharist is wrong." I'm pointing out that there is more than enough ambiguity in the text to allow for alternate interpretations.

To put it another way: You have certainly not, in any convincing fashion, established that the Catholic explanation is the only possible one. The evidence is nowhere near that strong.

1) Because they didn't like the Catholic ones and so made up their own.

Why does that matter? They are not bound by Catholic doctrines. They can develop their own traditions, doctrines, theologies and rituals.

2) Who made that argument?!

Why did you mention "tradition," if you did not find it to be somehow binding?

Though remember what Paul says that anyone who receives unworthily brings damnation upon himself.

Paul wasn't there when Jesus made that statement. So who has standing?

Are you not biased? Who cares, give me a break. This doesn't deal with the argument.

Yes, it does, because you're basically begging the question; you start with the position of "this interpretation must be the right one, and if you say anything else you have to prove it." In contrast, I have no particular dog in this fight, and no reason to adhere to any position. As such, I have no problems entertaining the idea that Jesus was speaking metaphorically.

 

[Visbek]

It was this specific teaching about the Eucharist that they left Him about.

There was no "Eucharist" at that time. Again, no specific ritual was outlined, no process by which Jesus specifically stated "this is how you turn the wine into blood, and bread into flesh." And I've very clearly pointed out how both Jesus and Simon Peter were focusing on words, not rituals.

Those followers who departed almost certainly did so because such statements were absolutely radical to Jews at that time. Having lived with Christianity for the past 2000 years, it doesn't occur to us to think of Jesus the way the Jews of that time probably did -- as an itinerant preacher, a miracle worker, as another guy wandering around Judea. We don't realize that miracle workers and healers were dime-a-dozen, and that the Jewish audience might want to hear someone who wants the Romans out of Judea and lambastes the Temple for collaborating with their oppressors -- but they might find the claim that "I am the son of Yahweh, and it is I who will grant you eternal life" to be beyond the pale.

You're bogged down by centuries of Catholic doctrine, and many actual facts on the ground are lost to history, such that it makes it very difficult to understand those events on their own terms. So yet again, you display how your apparent intransigence makes it essentially impossible for you to even consider that any other position has merit.

 

[Visbek]

People don't sincerely partake of the Lord's Supper....

Meaning what, you have to pass a test to receive the Eucharist? (I guess I missed that part.) What if you are sincere during one Mass, and have doubts the next? And resume sincerity the week after that?

And really, what's the important part here? Being sincere in your faith? Or participating in the ritual? If you have faith, but do not participate in the Eucharist, do you face eternal damnation? Or just a stint in Purgatory?

 

[RGacky3]

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

So Jesus just said "You are Peter" for the hell of it? I'm pretty sure that Simon-Peter already knew his name.

Yes they misunderstood him ... They thought he was being literal and he wasn't.

He didn't say "You are Peter" for the hell of it, Peter had just said "you are the messiah," and jesus says "you are peter."

Plus we know from Acts and the epistles that Peter wasn't pope, he obayed the commands of Both James (bishop of bishops) and Paul, James was teh leader of the Jerusalem chuch, which was the main church at the time, Peter was one of the 3 pillars Paul mentions, James, Peter and John.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

There is no such necessity, unless you are going to claim some sort of knowledge -- not emotion, not feeling, but information -- that is only accessible via revelation. That certainly doesn't fit a Catholic interpretation.

I might add that there are quite a few scholars of Christianity who are themselves religious -- and still reject the idea of the Eucharist as a literal consumption of the flesh and blood of Christ. John Crossan comes to mind.

I never said I accepted the idea of a literal consumption of flesh and blood of Christ. In fact, I do not.

 

[Visbek]

I never said I accepted the idea of a literal consumption of flesh and blood of Christ. In fact, I do not.

Then I believe phattonez would like to have a word with you.

Still, the point stands. You don't need to be a Hindu to understand Hinduism; you don't need to be Jewish to study and understand Jewish law; you don't need to be Buddhist to understand Buddhist theology (despite the focus on orthopraxy). Same for Christian theology and pretty much any philosophical system; you can understand lots of ideas without any necessity to internalize them.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Then I believe phattonez would like to have a word with you.

Probably so.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

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?

ntx-communion-transubstantiation

 

[Logicman]

Meaning what, you have to pass a test to receive the Eucharist? (I guess I missed that part.) What if you are sincere during one Mass, and have doubts the next? And resume sincerity the week after that?

From 1 Corinthians 11 - 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. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.

And really, what's the important part here? Being sincere in your faith? Or participating in the ritual? If you have faith, but do not participate in the Eucharist, do you face eternal damnation? Or just a stint in Purgatory?

There is no purgatory, but there is the Lord's discipline, or possible loss of rewards or position in heaven.

 

[head of joaquin]

There is no purgatory, but there is the Lord's discipline, or possible loss of rewards or position in heaven.

There a class system in heaven? Oh dear, another bad sequel to the gospel. God as CEO.

 

[Wiseone]

I don't want to hear about anyone advocating a literal interpretation of the Bible unless in their church women always wear a head covering and men never, NEVER, pray with a hat on.

1 Corinthians 11 NIV - Follow my example, as I follow the - Bible Gateway

2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

 

[head of joaquin]

I don't want to hear about anyone advocating a literal interpretation of the Bible unless in their church women always wear a head covering and men never, NEVER, pray with a hat on.

Oh dear, now the glossing by the literalists will begin in order to show that the literal meaning of those passages wasn't the literal meaning at all. You've released the Kraken!

 

[davidtaylorjr]

I don't want to hear about anyone advocating a literal interpretation of the Bible unless in their church women always wear a head covering and men never, NEVER, pray with a hat on.

1 Corinthians 11 NIV - Follow my example, as I follow the - Bible Gateway

You have taken that verse way out of context. It is talking about, if you actually read it, the man being covered in Christ, and the man covering his wife. It's a line of submission.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Oh dear, now the glossing by the literalists will begin in order to show that the literal meaning of those passages wasn't the literal meaning at all. You've released the Kraken!

No glossing, he just left out the details and misread.

 

[head of joaquin]

You have taken that verse way out of context. It is talking about, if you actually read it, the man being covered in Christ, and the man covering his wife. It's a line of submission.

And we have liftoff! Let the glossing begin!