Argument in Defense of the Real Presence

[elysian]

Lutherans have taught the doctrine of the Real Presence in Holy Communion (consubstantiation) since the Reformation. I have long agreed with this stance: Jesus' Body and Blood are present simply because He said so and that when we partake of His Supper we partake of His Body and His Blood.

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them. Mark 14:22-24 (NIV)

Jesus doesn't tell us how, just simply that it is.

In a battle between reason and Scripture, Scripture (especially the words of Jesus) has the upper hand. We believe it because Jesus said it is so.
The "how" is a mystery, a mystery that is entrusted to God Who can do ALL things.

This is a great article in defense of the Real Presence (http://www.discernment.org/responding_to_the_real_presence.htm) from a non-Lutheran perspective.

[spl_cadet]

Good article!

[elysian]

Amazing how people have trouble with the word "is." Jesus said "this is My Body" and "this is my Blood." How this happens is a mystery, but if we believe Him don't we need to take Him at His word?

When I was going through Adult Catechism (I wasn't confirmed until I was 20) our Pastor took a great deal of time in explaining the Real Presence. It is remarkably similar to the RC teaching but since many of the people in our class were new Christians I am grateful he spent so much time explaining and answering our questions.

With this Word you can strengthen your conscience and say: If a hundred thousand devils, together with all fanatics, should rush forward, crying, How can bread and wine be the body and blood of Christ? etc., I know that all spirits and scholars together are not as wise as is the Divine Majesty in His little finger. Now here stands the Word of Christ: Take, eat; this is My body; Drink ye all of it; this is the new testament in My blood, etc. Here we abide, and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken. It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word or regard it without the words, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive. From Luther's Large Catechism, "On the Sacrament of the Altar"

[Jezz]

Good article!
Here, here! And what's even more amazing about it is that it doesn't even rely on what I consider to be the strongest evidence for the Real Presence: the unanimous teaching of the ECFs.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,44 because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; "and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood; "and gave it to them alone.

Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.

The list goes on and on and on. I do not have time to sort through more; the interested reader can look here (http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html) for many more examples.

There are (to my knowledge) no examples of any Christian teaching anything other than Real Presence for the first 500 years of Christianity at least - and I suspect possibly much longer. Anyone who tries to foist a non-Real Presence interpretation of the Eucharist onto the text is engaging in eisegesis, not exegesis. They are inventing their own Christianity, rather than trying to follow the Christianity that Christ Himself founded.

[spl_cadet]

The wonder of course is that all these people aren't Catholic, since we're the ones holding faithfully to transubstantiation :tongue:

[themuzicman]

What's really odd is that none of these articles deal with the fact that Jesus hadn't even died, yet, and He didn't tear off a piece of His body to give to them, but tore up a piece of store bought bread.

What is really interesting is that the bread was made without yeast. Yeast is consistently used for corruption and sin. Thus "this is my body", to the disciples, would have clearly meant that He was saying that He was without sin, and that they were be partakers of His body, not by eating it, but by salvation, such that He was their sacrifice for sin, and that they were to belong to Him, that they were now His body, as we see Paul articulating very clearly in 1 Cor 12 and Gal 2:20-22, among other places.

Furthermore, you'll note that "This is my blood of the Covenant, which is poured out for you." (Mat 26:28) Notice that the blood has to be poured out for them. It had not been poured out at the last supper, so it could not be that blood.

If you study covenant in the OT, you find that covenant is always associated with blood. Abraham cut animals in half, Noah sacrificed one of the clean animals, sacrifice was a regular part of the Mosaic covenant, and what Christ was saying here wasn't that they would be literally drinking His blood, but that a New Covenant, established with His blood was about to come to be, and that is how the disciples would have understood it. They knew what covenant was and how it was established.

So, let's not take this as a Greek would understand it, but as a Hebrew would understand it. Bread without yeast and blood of the covenant are very clear to them.

Michael

[Jezz]

What's really odd is that none of these articles deal with the fact that Jesus hadn't even died, yet, and He didn't tear off a piece of His body to give to them, but tore up a piece of store bought bread.
Kinda like how it was odd that He only tore up 5 loaves and 2 fish, and somehow 5000 men + women and children managed to eat their fill. That was quite odd. Or like that time when He instructed His disciples to fill the water jars with water, and then when the servers served from it it was wine. Hmmm - odd. And then there was that time where He was crucified, and on the 3rd day after His death He got up and started walking around again. Really odd stuff.

Yes, it was odd that Jesus could offer His disciples His flesh to eat, while He was still standing there alive in front of them. That's our Jesus for ya - He did seem to have a knack for doing odd things. That's what made Him special.

You're not claiming that Real Presence is impossible simply because it was "odd", are you?

What is really interesting is that the bread was made without yeast. Yeast is consistently used for corruption and sin. Thus "this is my body", to the disciples, would have clearly meant that He was saying that He was without sin, and that they were be partakers of His body, not by eating it, but by salvation, such that He was their sacrifice for sin, and that they were to belong to Him, that they were now His body, as we see Paul articulating very clearly in 1 Cor 12 and Gal 2:20-22, among other places.
No, "this is my body" would clearly mean "this stuff here, that I hold in my hand - this stuff is my body. Not something else - this stuff.

Furthermore, you'll note that "This is my blood of the Covenant, which is poured out for you." (Mat 26:28) Notice that the blood has to be poured out for them. It had not been poured out at the last supper, so it could not be that blood.
Your objection begs the question because it assumes that the blood that Jesus was referring to was not the blood in the cup. In fact, it was the contents of the cup that Jesus was referring to when He said "this is my blood". And that which was in the cup had indeed been poured out. How else do you think the wine got into the cup? :doh:

You're also committing the first sin of exegesis, which is to make tricky arguments based on things like tense from an English translation. The word translated "poured out" is not actually a verb in the Greek, but a present passive participle. Being a present participle, it has a continuous aspect - ie, it denotes an ongoing action at the time of speaking. In other words, as Jesus was speaking, the "pouring out" of the blood was actually happening. It wasn't going to happen in the future, and it hadn't happened in the past, or at some other unspecified time (all of which use different tenses for the participle) - it was happening now.

If you study covenant in the OT, you find that covenant is always associated with blood. Abraham cut animals in half, Noah sacrificed one of the clean animals, sacrifice was a regular part of the Mosaic covenant, and what Christ was saying here wasn't that they would be literally drinking His blood, but that a New Covenant, established with His blood was about to come to be, and that is how the disciples would have understood it. They knew what covenant was and how it was established.
Yes, the covenants all involved blood. And the blood that Jesus used for this covenant that He instituted was the blood in the cup - the stuff that he gave to His disciples. It was the stuff in the cup that Jesus was referring to when he said "this is my blood". The cup was in front of him, and referring to its contents, He said: "This is my blood of the new covenant." Jesus did not say: "the blood that I will shed tomorrow is the blood of the new covenant". He said, quite simply, quite plainly, that the stuff in the cup was His blood.

You are distorting the plain meaning of scripture. A meaning that was plain to all those who read it in their native tongue for the first 1500 years of Christianity. Do you really think that Jesus would have waited 1500 years before He said "oh, and by the way - that's not what I actually meant"?

So, let's not take this as a Greek would understand it, but as a Hebrew would understand it. Bread without yeast and blood of the covenant are very clear to them.
Translation: let's not take this as a 1st century Greek would understand how a 1st century Hebrew would understand it, but as a 21st Century American thinks a 1st Hebrew would have understood it. :ahem: I have another suggestion: Let's not pretend that we know the Hebrew mind better than their Greek contemporaries did, shall we? :smile: Especially as their Greek contemporaries were actually taught by those Hebrews.

Ignatius of Antioch was the 3rd bishop of Antioch - the city where Christians were first called by that name. The first bishop of Antioch was Peter himself. Ignatius knew Peter and was taught by him, or at the very least was taught by people who were taught by Peter. And Ignatius of Antioch clearly teaches the Real Presence. How do you suppose Ignatius managed to get himself elected bishop, if he didn't even properly understand the significance of the most important ritual that Jesus taught His disciples?

And if Ignatius was mistaken, where do you think he got the idea? For that matter, where do you think the rest of the Church got the idea? They just all made it up? All came to the same erroneous conclusion? Why is it you find everyone, everywhere in the early Church who discusses this in any detail claiming that this was really Jesus body and blood? Are you really going to tell me that they all got it wrong and you got it right?

What about those members of the Church who were Semitic and not Greek? Like the Assyrian Church of the East? They still hold to the Real Presence too...

Once again Michael, you find yourself trying to explain how everyone in the Church got it wrong for the first 1500 years, and how it is that you're so much smarter than everyone else that you are able to see what they could not. Their blindness is made all the more astounding by the fact that they were reading their own language in their own culture and hearing it from those who were actually present at the Supper! Or perhaps (as I find more likely), it is you who is wrong, and the Church who is right?

[Amazing Rando]

Lutherans have taught the doctrine of the Real Presence in Holy Communion (consubstantiation) since the Reformation. I have long agreed with this stance: Jesus' Body and Blood are present simply because He said so and that when we partake of His Supper we partake of His Body and His Blood.

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them. Mark 14:22-24 (NIV)

Jesus doesn't tell us how, just simply that it is.

In a battle between reason and Scripture, Scripture (especially the words of Jesus) has the upper hand. We believe it because Jesus said it is so.
The "how" is a mystery, a mystery that is entrusted to God Who can do ALL things.

This is a great article in defense of the Real Presence (http://www.discernment.org/responding_to_the_real_presence.htm) from a non-Lutheran perspective.

Interesting, and I'll admit that I'm a little confused about the "real presence" doctrine. But can you tell me how the "real presence" of Jesus in the Communion elements is any different than his real presence as he promised in Matthew 18:20? . "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

It seems to me that Jesus is already present in the worship service.

Or that he's always with us, according to the Great Commission at least?

I'm not sure why if Jesus is already with us in the worship services and everywhere else we should go that a special presence is required during Holy Communion. Perhaps this is due to my ignorance of the doctrine, so can you flesh it out a bit more?

I'm potentially open to the Real Presence doctrine, if I could just learn a little more about it. It's still a little too foreign for me to really comprehend it. As it is, Communion is my favorite part of the worship service. I can sense that there really is something more to it than meets the eye, thought that could of course be due to the fact that it's the point of my most intense prayer and concentration of the whole service? As it is, I wish we Methodists would do Communion more than once a month, because I really enjoy it.

[Maxentius]

Interesting, and I'll admit that I'm a little confused about the "real presence" doctrine. But can you tell me how the "real presence" of Jesus in the Communion elements is any different than his real presence as he promised in Matthew 18:20? . "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

It seems to me that Jesus is already present in the worship service.

Or that he's always with us, according to the Great Commission at least?

Good question.

The answer is that Jesus is present in a special way, physically, when we receive communion. This presence is also unlike the presence of the Father or the Holy Spirit since neither have a physical nature.

This goes back to the Reformation, actually. The Reformed believe in a "Real Presence" too, but it is a spiritual presence only. The idea is that Jesus' human body is spacially limited so it cannot be everywhere at the same time.

Lutherans object to this because Jesus promised his body and blood to us in the Sacrament he instituted. How he does that is idle speculation.

We also do not go as far as the RCC and assert that there is no bread and wine present. And (pace elysian) :smile: Lutherans to not teach "consubstantiation". We simply say that Jesus offers us his body and blood "with and under" the bread and wine, according to his promise. It is a mystery and we do not try to penetrate God's mysteries if we do not have enough information.

On a "higer" theological level, if we say that Jesus' human nature is not present where his divine nature is, don't we divide the person in a semi-Nestorian way?

I'm potentially open to the Real Presence doctrine, if I could just learn a little more about it. It's still a little too foreign for me to really comprehend it. As it is, Communion is my favorite part of the worship service. I can sense that there really is something more to it than meets the eye, thought that could of course be due to the fact that it's the point of my most intense prayer and concentration of the whole service? As it is, I wish we Methodists would do Communion more than once a month, because I really enjoy it.

Ok, let's look at in a different way.

If we receive communion because Jesus told us to and in remembrance of him, isn't it something we do?

But, if we receive Jesus true body and blood, if we gnaw his flesh and drink his blood, isn't that something he does for us and gives to us?

Regarding multiple modes of God's presence. I love my wife. I can tell her that through a letter or a phone call. But I can also kiss her on her cheek. My kiss on her cheek does not make my love for her any more real but I am certain she feels my love for her more intensely. It is emotional and physical.

Holy Communion is similar. We all as Christians are concious of God's presence, of his forgiveness of our sins. But when the minister says "The Body of Christ given for you" and "The blood of Christ shed for you" and we really believe it, we receive forgiveness in more than a spiritual/theological/abstract manner. It is there we receive the very Paschal Lamb, forgiveness, renewal and new life.

[elysian]

Max, correct my error here-

Con`sub`stan`ti`a´tion
n. 1. An identity or union of substance.
2. (Theol.) [I]The actual, substantial presence of the body of Christ with the bread and wine of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper; impanation; - opposed to transubstantiation.

Tran`sub`stan`ti`a´tion
n. 1. A change into another substance.
2. (R. C. Theol.) The doctrine held by Roman Catholics, that the bread and wine in the Mass is converted into the body and blood of Christ; - distinguished from consubstantiation, and impanation.

Im´pa`na´tion
n. 1. (Eccl.) Embodiment in bread; the supposed real presence and union of Christ's material body and blood with the substance of the elements of the eucharist without a change in their nature; - distinguished from transubstantiation, which supposes a miraculous change of the substance of the elements. It is akin to consubstantiation.

My understanding has always been that RC's believe in transubstantiation, Lutherans and Anglicans in consubstantiation, and the Reformed churches in a symbolic meal.

Where is the doctrine of consubstantiation inconsistent with Lutheran teaching? Just curious.

[Amazing Rando]

Good question.

The answer is that Jesus is present in a special way, physically, when we receive communion. This presence is also unlike the presence of the Father or the Holy Spirit since neither have a physical nature.

Okay. :yes: I know better than to foolishly demand you show me just how Jesus is present in the bread and wine- to you guys, it, like many other parts of our faith, is a "mystery." :smile:

This goes back to the Reformation, actually. The Reformed believe in a "Real Presence" too, but it is a spiritual presence only. The idea is that Jesus' human body is spacially limited so it cannot be everywhere at the same time.

Hehe. Speaking of Reformed, where do Lutherans stand on Calvinism anyhow?

Lutherans object to this because Jesus promised his body and blood to us in the Sacrament he instituted. How he does that is idle speculation.



Gotcha. A mystery. I guess it all hinges on whether or not Jesus was being metaphorical when he said "This is my body."

We also do not go as far as the RCC and assert that there is no bread and wine present. And (pace elysian) :smile: Lutherans to not teach "consubstantiation". We simply say that Jesus offers us his body and blood "with and under" the bread and wine, according to his promise. It is a mystery and we do not try to penetrate God's mysteries if we do not have enough information.

I've heard arguments against the real presence doctrine that point at Jesus saying in John 10:9 that he is the gate. Those critics go on to ridicule the true presence doctrine by saying "if you don't think Jesus was literally a wooden gate with hinges, why do you think we literally eat his body and blood?" Now I know it's a pretty juvenile criticism, but how would you respond to those allegations?

On a "higer" theological level, if we say that Jesus' human nature is not present where his divine nature is, don't we divide the person in a semi-Nestorian way?

Now that's a bit over my head at the moment, but yes, at first glance, it would seem that where Jesus' person is, there his divine nature is also.

Ok, let's look at in a different way.

If we receive communion because Jesus told us to and in remembrance of him, isn't it something we do?

Yes... but that's exactly what he commanded us to do, isn't it? :huh:

But, if we receive Jesus true body and blood, if we gnaw his flesh and drink his blood, isn't that something he does for us and gives to us?

Certainly- his sacrifice was his gift to us.

Regarding multiple modes of God's presence. I love my wife. I can tell her that through a letter or a phone call. But I can also kiss her on her cheek. My kiss on her cheek does not make my love for her any more real but I am certain she feels my love for her more intensely. It is emotional and physical.

Holy Communion is similar. We all as Christians are concious of God's presence, of his forgiveness of our sins. But when the minister says "The Body of Christ given for you" and "The blood of Christ shed for you" and we really believe it, we receive forgiveness in more than a spiritual/theological/abstract manner. It is there we receive the very Paschal Lamb, forgiveness, renewal and new life.

That's a beautiful way to view it, Max. :yes: Thanks for explaining!

[Maxentius]

Where is the doctrine of consubstantiation inconsistent with Lutheran teaching? Just curious.

It is not that it is inconsistent or even wrong, it is that it attempts to describe the mystery--like transsubstantiation does.

Is Jesus' body and blood received?

Yes.

Is bread and wine received?

Yes. (NO! for transsubstantiation!)

How is that?

I don't know. God didn't tell me. He says we receive his body and blood and I take him at his word.

We are limited by St. Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians where he uses body, blood and bread, wine interchangably.


Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

This does not teach concubstantiation. That is something other confressions say we believe. It is not totally inaccurate but nowhere in the confessions will we find a description of how or what is going on.

"Impanation" was used as an analogy for communion and the Incarnation. As with consubstantiation, it attempts to describe what is happening.

This is a hobby horse I have been riding for a while here. :hehe: I do not think it is wise to try and figure everything out. We just do not know and we are not told.

[elysian]

Hehe. Speaking of Reformed, where do Lutherans stand on Calvinism anyhow?

We are neither Calvinist nor Arminian. (http://www.grace-els.org/confirmation/interpretation/node6.html)

Not to sound cheeky but in a nutshell we agree with Calvinists on Total Depravity but we disagree on Limited Atonement. If you're saved it's all to God's credit, and if you're damned it's your own fault! It's an interesting point of discussion but we try to take Scripture at face value and it defies human reason.

God's ways are not our ways, His understanding is not our understanding.

[spl_cadet]

Just to throw in a little more, here's a link about some of the Eucharistic Miracles:
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

[Maxentius]

Okay. :yes: I know better than to foolishly demand you show me just how Jesus is present in the bread and wine- to you guys, it, like many other parts of our faith, is a "mystery." :smile:

Yup, a mystery. Jusk like God's election is a mystery. :smile: Just like the Trinity is a mystery. We only see parts of a mystery, and that only by analogy. So we should be careful when we do not have enough to go on. That is why I do not think claiming "mystery" is a cop-out, as some claim. I simply do not have all the answers and I admit it.

Gotcha. A mystery. I guess it all hinges on whether or not Jesus was being metaphorical when he said "This is my body."

Yes it does. But I think the metaphorical interpretation is weak for textual and historical reasons. We see St. Paul emphasizing the same idea: an identity between the bread and the body, and the blood and the wine. According to St. paul, if one does not approach Holy Communion properly one is guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord, not bread and wine.

I've heard arguments against the real presence doctrine that point at Jesus saying in John 10:9 that he is the gate. Those critics go on to ridicule the true presence doctrine by saying "if you don't think Jesus was literally a wooden gate with hinges, why do you think we literally eat his body and blood?" Now I know it's a pretty juvenile criticism, but how would you respond to those allegations?

Just because Jesus uses metaphores in one place does not mean that everything that shocks our reason is a metaphore. Also, Jesus was instituting the Lord's Supper when he said "This is my body." It is a solemn occasion, whereas in John 10:9 it is clear that Jesus is using metaphorical language. In 10:1 Jesus starts with the analogy that those who do not wnter a sheep pen by the gate are theives--they do not enter the Kingdom correctly. Jesus is the Gate, the correct and only proper entry into the Kingdom, or sheep pen.

Basically, I think context argues against John 10:9 and the words of institution being connected in that way.

Now that's a bit over my head at the moment, but yes, at first glance, it would seem that where Jesus' person is, there his divine nature is also.

Yeah, sometimes Christology can get confusing. I do not think the Reformed are Nestorians of course.


Yes... but that's exactly what he commanded us to do, isn't it? :huh:

OK, I will clarify a little. :smile: He commanded us to eat his body and drink his blood. Some say we are commanded to receive bread and wine in rembrance of him, and focus on the remembrance. If the focus is on rembrance it is primarily something we do. Also, I do not see why I cannot eat his body and drink his blood in remembrance of him. :smile: I often hear that as a critique. (Yhough you have not used it, I am just pointing it out.)

I hope this helps a little. :smile:

[Jezz]

It is not that it is inconsistent or even wrong, it is that it attempts to describe the mystery--like transsubstantiation does.

Is Jesus' body and blood received?

Yes.

Is bread and wine received?

Yes. (NO! for transsubstantiation!)

How is that?

I don't know. God didn't tell me. He says we receive his body and blood and I take him at his word.
I completely agree with the above, Max. But in my understanding, consubstantiation is simply a shorthand for saying exactly what you described above! Let me explain it by rephrasing what you wrote slightly:

Is the substance of Jesus' body and blood received? Yes.
Is the substance of bread and wine received? Yes.

Thus, we receive the substance of both at the same time - the one with, or alongside, the other. The prefix "con" means exactly that - "with" or "alongside". Hence, "con-substantiation" means that we receive the two substances alongside each other. It is not an attempt to "explain" the Eucharistic mystery - rather, it is simply a shorthand way to refer to exactly the doctrine you just described, and as a simple way to differentiate this doctrine from the doctrine of transubstantiation.

I think that the proper way to understand this mystery is in reference to the incarnation (what better way to explain a mystery of God, than by reference to another of His mysteries? :smile:). The purpose of the Eucharist is communion with the divine - where created meets uncreated. Jesus was the example of this sort of communion par excellence. He was fully divine - "of one substance" with the Father - and yet at the same time, He was also fully human - of the same substance as us. Somehow, these two substances coexisted in the person of Jesus. Exactly how is a mystery... I understand the Real Presence in the same way. It seems this is how Justin understood it, too:

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

That is why I had to laugh when I read this statement:

Luther, who, unlike Calvin and his disciples, was not utterly blind to the clear meaning of the words of Sacred Scripture (cf. John 6 below), tried to preserve belief in the Real Presence while distancing himself from the Roman Catholic Church's teaching of transubstantiation. So he taught what we call consubstantiation: that the body and blood of Christ are present along with the bread and the wine.

The problem with this explanation is that it postulates an entirely new manner of being and says that Christ had to be using is in a way much different from the way we normally use the word, so that when he said, 'This is my body,' he really meant, 'This is my body (along with the bread which is still here too).' The real obscenity of this explanation is that Luther then has the temerity to complain about Catholics complicating the Gospel!
Consider how the last paragraph would apply to the statement "Jesus is God":

"The problem with this explanation is that it postulates an entirely new manner of being and uses the word "is" is a way much different from the way we normally use the word, so that when it is said, 'Jesus is God,' it really means, 'Jesus is God (and man too)'"

I doubt the author of that statement would object to the claim that "Jesus is God" does not mean that the substance of Jesus was not man... therefore, the "entirely new manner of being" that they are claim is already evident in the manner in which Christ Himself was "being".

Looked at from the point of view of the analogy to the incarnation, transubstantiation can be seen as the Eucharistic equivalent to docetism. Docetism taught that Jesus wasn't really a man (ie, He was not of the substance of human beings) - he merely appeared to be a man, while retaining the substance of deity. In the same way, transubstantiation teaches that the elements, after consecration, are not fully bread and blood in every way - but they just appear to be.

The problem I see with transubstantiation is that it is contrary to our experience. We know that the elements do not merely taste, look, smell like bread and wine - but also, if we subjected them to any possible scientific test, they would produce the same results as ordinary bread and wine. They would consist of the same atoms, molecules, produce the same spectrum in a mass spectrometer, NMR, etc, etc. In the same way that Jesus was every bit an ordinary human being, the Eucharistic elements are every bit as much bread and wine as ordinary bread and wine is. To say that they do not have the "substance" of bread and wine is to rely on an outdated concept from Aristotlean physics. And that was the problem with transubstantiation - it relied on specific scientific concepts of the day which were bound to look dated as our understanding of physics improved, and tied Eucharistic understanding to a concept that would ultimately prove flawed. The doctrine was born in the age of Scholasticism where such speculation was popular...

Hey, I don't mind speculation about how science and the mysteries fit together - I do it all the time. But it's one thing to speculate about it, and quite another to turn such speculation into dogmatic statements about faith. Speculation should never be dogmatic - it should be guided by our faith, not determining our faith.

[Maxentius]

I completely agree with the above, Max. But in my understanding, consubstantiation is simply a shorthand for saying exactly what you described above! Let me explain it by rephrasing what you wrote slightly:

Is the substance of Jesus' body and blood received? Yes.
Is the substance of bread and wine received? Yes.

Thus, we receive the substance of both at the same time - the one with, or alongside, the other. The prefix "con" means exactly that - "with" or "alongside". Hence, "con-substantiation" means that we receive the two substances alongside each other. It is not an attempt to "explain" the Eucharistic mystery - rather, it is simply a shorthand way to refer to exactly the doctrine you just described, and as a simple way to differentiate this doctrine from the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Fair enough. But I think that saying we believe in "consubstantiation" does attempt to describe the mystery. Luther's formulation was "in, with and under". He used an even better analogy, I think. He likened the Real Presence to the heat and light in a glowing red poker. Neither nature is changed. Consubstantiation aimplies a change in the elements IMO. That is not the Lutheran opinion. Also, every Lutheran minister I spoke with objected to use of the term consubstantiation. In any case I am not too dogmatic about not using consubstantiation. :hehe:

Here is a pretty good link:

http://joelbrondos.worldmagblog.com/archives/003188.html


First of all, what do these terms mean? Consubstantiation, as the word indicates, means a combination of two substances in such a way that by being mixed together they are fused into one substance or mass, consisting of different ingredients. For example, pouring the substances of water and wine together produces a watered wine (Weinwasser); blending honey and water produces mead; mixing meat and flour produces meat pies. Hence, in the Lord’s Supper consubstantiation would involve the concept of a spacial combination, mixture, and fusion of the body and blood of Christ with the consecrated elements as a new dual mass, as Eutyches once asserted the fusion of both natures in Christ into one nature.

Impanation signifies the spacial inclusion, concealment, incapsulation of an item within the bread, as in a capsule containing and enclosing the item. Hence, in the Lord’s Supper impanation would express the idea that the body of Christ, compressed into a very small body, lies concealed under the consecrated bread and is enclosed by it as by its container.

These conceptions of the presence of Christ, that is, of His body and blood, in the Holy Supper are thoroughly unbiblical, materialistic, unworthy, and self-contradictory, and they are equally un-Lutheran and in contradiction to the Confessions of our church. . . .

The first one to impute the conception of impanation and consubstantiation to Luther was Carlstadt, who therefore in a blasphemous way referred to the God of the Lutherans as a “God made of bread” (St. Louis Edition, XX, 577). Zwingli, Oecolampadius, and even Bucer of Strasbourg followed Carlstadt in this matter. Bucer, however, revoked his accusation after he had read Luther’s “Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper” and had talked with Luther. He wrote:

When Luther in the process of this disputation went into greater detail on this entire matter of’ the Sacrament, I perceived that he did not combine the body and blood of the Lord with bread and wine by a natural bond, nor enclose body and blood spatially in bread and wine, nor attribute to the sacraments the peculiar power through which these achieve the salvation of the communicants, but that he merely affirmed a sacramental union between the bread and the Lord’s body, between His blood and the wine. Furthermore, he teaches that the strengthening of faith attributed to the sacraments does not rest on a power which inheres in the external elements as such, but a power which belongs to Christ and is imparted by His Spirit through the words and sacred signs. When I understood this, I was at pains to show and commend this also to others.

Of course, it is possible to use the term consubstantiation and not mean that the elements are changed.

I think that the proper way to understand this mystery is in reference to the incarnation (what better way to explain a mystery of God, than by reference to another of His mysteries? :smile:). The purpose of the Eucharist is communion with the divine - where created meets uncreated. Jesus was the example of this sort of communion par excellence. He was fully divine - "of one substance" with the Father - and yet at the same time, He was also fully human - of the same substance as us. Somehow, these two substances coexisted in the person of Jesus. Exactly how is a mystery... I understand the Real Presence in the same way....

Therefore here and now I desire to testify to all who read this that Martin Luther and those who truly agree with him and duly follow his teaching do not assume any impanation in the Holy Supper, nor any local inclusion of Christ’s body in the bread and blood in the wine, nor do they ascribe any saving power to the external actions of the Sacrament as such. They assume a true, substantial presence and distribution of the Lord’s body and blood with the bread and wine in Holy Communion, as both the Lord’s own words and the testimony of the apostle clearly express. This presence and distribution is based on the words and institution of the Lord Himself, without any natural union of Christ’s body and blood with the elements. . . .

Actually, I used this same analogy when I was discussing transsubstantiation with an informed RC. More below.

It seems this is how Justin understood it, too:

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

I doubt the author of that statement would object to the claim that "Jesus is God" does not mean that the substance of Jesus was not man... therefore, the "entirely new manner of being" that they are claim is already evident in the manner in which Christ Himself was "being".

Looked at from the point of view of the analogy to the incarnation, transubstantiation can be seen as the Eucharistic equivalent to docetism. Docetism taught that Jesus wasn't really a man (ie, He was not of the substance of human beings) - he merely appeared to be a man, while retaining the substance of deity. In the same way, transubstantiation teaches that the elements, after consecration, are not fully bread and blood in every way - but they just appear to be.

Yeah, my friend had a problem when I kept asking, if there can be only one substance, what does that to to the Incarnation? he did not have a good answer. But we do not really teach impanation. It is still a good analogy though.

And that was the problem with transubstantiation - it relied on specific scientific concepts of the day which were bound to look dated as our understanding of physics improved, and tied Eucharistic understanding to a concept that would ultimately prove flawed. The doctrine was born in the age of Scholasticism where such speculation was popular...

I think it was based on Aristotalian concepts of essences and accidents.

Hey, I don't mind speculation about how science and the mysteries fit together - I do it all the time. But it's one thing to speculate about it, and quite another to turn such speculation into dogmatic statements about faith. Speculation should never be dogmatic - it should be guided by our faith, not determining our faith.

I don't mind speculation either, and like you we should be careful not to take our private opinions and attempt to bind other's conciences to them.

[themuzicman]

Kinda like how it was odd that He only tore up 5 loaves and 2 fish, and somehow 5000 men + women and children managed to eat their fill. That was quite odd. Or like that time when He instructed His disciples to fill the water jars with water, and then when the servers served from it it was wine. Hmmm - odd. And then there was that time where He was crucified, and on the 3rd day after His death He got up and started walking around again. Really odd stuff.

Yes, it was odd that Jesus could offer His disciples His flesh to eat, while He was still standing there alive in front of them. That's our Jesus for ya - He did seem to have a knack for doing odd things. That's what made Him special.

You're not claiming that Real Presence is impossible simply because it was "odd", are you?

No. I'm saying it because if there is flesh that is literally Jesus' around before He dies that He hasn't pulled off of Himself, then He isn't human just as we are, and, as such is ineligible to be our atonement.

There is a vast difference between multiplying bread or turning water in to wine, and saying that there is a piece of Jesus' body that isn't attached to Him just before He dies.

No, "this is my body" would clearly mean "this stuff here, that I hold in my hand - this stuff is my body. Not something else - this stuff.

Yes, the bread and the wine.

Your objection begs the question because it assumes that the blood that Jesus was referring to was not the blood in the cup. In fact, it was the contents of the cup that Jesus was referring to when He said "this is my blood". And that which was in the cup had indeed been poured out. How else do you think the wine got into the cup? :doh:

Well, unless He slit His wrists, that would be a trick. Again, if there is more to Jesus' body than what is contained within the being that is sitting there, then He cannot be out atonement.

You're also committing the first sin of exegesis, which is to make tricky arguments based on things like tense from an English translation. The word translated "poured out" is not actually a verb in the Greek, but a present passive participle. Being a present participle, it has a continuous aspect - ie, it denotes an ongoing action at the time of speaking. In other words, as Jesus was speaking, the "pouring out" of the blood was actually happening. It wasn't going to happen in the future, and it hadn't happened in the past, or at some other unspecified time (all of which use different tenses for the participle) - it was happening now.

Ah, but Jesus also used the present tense "This is my blood", meaning it was present and had already been poured out, regardless of who done it.

Yes, the covenants all involved blood. And the blood that Jesus used for this covenant that He instituted was the blood in the cup - the stuff that he gave to His disciples. It was the stuff in the cup that Jesus was referring to when he said "this is my blood". The cup was in front of him, and referring to its contents, He said: "This is my blood of the new covenant." Jesus did not say: "the blood that I will shed tomorrow is the blood of the new covenant". He said, quite simply, quite plainly, that the stuff in the cup was His blood.

Again, if that was His blood, then Christ is ineligible to be our atonement, because He isn't the same kind of human Adam was.

You are distorting the plain meaning of scripture. A meaning that was plain to all those who read it in their native tongue for the first 1500 years of Christianity. Do you really think that Jesus would have waited 1500 years before He said "oh, and by the way - that's not what I actually meant"?

No, but I would expect that fallen men will misinterpret all kinds of things, this passage being one of them.

Translation: let's not take this as a 1st century Greek would understand how a 1st century Hebrew would understand it, but as a 21st Century American thinks a 1st Hebrew would have understood it. :ahem: I have another suggestion: Let's not pretend that we know the Hebrew mind better than their Greek contemporaries did, shall we? :smile: Especially as their Greek contemporaries were actually taught by those Hebrews.

Let's just go back to passover and see what was going on there. That's the symbolism Jesus is drawing on. Was there literal blood of the lamb poured out? Was there flesh made into bread?

Of course not. Why ask 1st century greeks to understand it, when we have the souce of that meaning already written down for us?

Ignatius of Antioch was the 3rd bishop of Antioch - the city where Christians were first called by that name. The first bishop of Antioch was Peter himself. Ignatius knew Peter and was taught by him, or at the very least was taught by people who were taught by Peter. And Ignatius of Antioch clearly teaches the Real Presence. How do you suppose Ignatius managed to get himself elected bishop, if he didn't even properly understand the significance of the most important ritual that Jesus taught His disciples?

Argument by association. Ignatius knew Peter, therefore Peter must have told him what Jesus mean, therefore this must be correct.

Unfortunately, we don't know that Peter or any of the apostles interpreted that event beyond passing on the tradition, and, oddly enough, the only apostle to mention it in an epistle is Paul not Peter!

And if Ignatius was mistaken, where do you think he got the idea? For that matter, where do you think the rest of the Church got the idea? They just all made it up? All came to the same erroneous conclusion? Why is it you find everyone, everywhere in the early Church who discusses this in any detail claiming that this was really Jesus body and blood? Are you really going to tell me that they all got it wrong and you got it right?

I won't claim that I'm inerrant if you won't claim that tradition is inerrant.

(This is SO typical of RCC. We've believed this for a long time. It HAS to be right. Sure. Ask Vatican I and II... or Luther... or Calvin.)

What about those members of the Church who were Semitic and not Greek? Like the Assyrian Church of the East? They still hold to the Real Presence too...

And?

Once again Michael, you find yourself trying to explain how everyone in the Church got it wrong for the first 1500 years, and how it is that you're so much smarter than everyone else that you are able to see what they could not. Their blindness is made all the more astounding by the fact that they were reading their own language in their own culture and hearing it from those who were actually present at the Supper! Or perhaps (as I find more likely), it is you who is wrong, and the Church who is right?

If I were the first person to posit such a thought, you might have a better point to make, but clearly I'm not. So, your whole argument about this being me vs. 1500 years of RCC history is moot.

Furthermore, there is no basis for saying that the RCC or tradition is inerrant, so this argument falls on that sword, too.

Perhaps, as with so many other issues in the RCC, the RCC is flat out wrong, and needs correction once again.

Michael

[VFarris01]

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body." Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," He said to them.

I hate to sound cliche but does the interpretation of this verse depend on what the definition of "is" is?

The obvious definition of "is" in this verse is "represents."

I am reminded of the movie A Bug's Life when Flick is trying to explain gathering seeds to Dot using a rock to represent a seed.

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke the bread, and gave the bread to His disciples, saying, "Take this bread; this bread is my body." "But," injects Peter, "its a piece of bread." "I know its a piece of bread," Jesus replies correcting him, "pretend it is My body." Then he took a cup of wine, gave thanks and offered the cup of wine to them, and they all drank from the cup of wine. "This cup of wine is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them. "But," injects Peter again, "its a cup of wine." "I know its a cup of wine, pretend it is My blood," Jesus replies through clenched teeth. "But its a piece of bread and a cup of wine," Peter says, still confused. Jesus shrugs His shoulders wondering why He chose Peter to succeed Him as His representative on earth. :wink:

[spl_cadet]

Musicman, tell me why we should trust your word over a second century bishop. I think that the bishop was just a bit closer to Jesus and the Apostles than you are.

[Jezz]

Fair enough. But I think that saying we believe in "consubstantiation" does attempt to describe the mystery. Luther's formulation was "in, with and under". He used an even better analogy, I think. He likened the Real Presence to the heat and light in a glowing red poker. Neither nature is changed. Consubstantiation aimplies a change in the elements IMO. That is not the Lutheran opinion.
Well, I've never used consubstantiation in that way. I've only ever used it as a shorthand for exactly what you said - ie, we receive the body and blood when we receive the bread and wine. Neither nature is changed - rather, the "body and blood" nature is united to the "bread and wine" nature when the elements are consecrated - in the same way that the Word's divine nature was united to a human nature when He became incarnate. More on this below.

Also, every Lutheran minister I spoke with objected to use of the term consubstantiation. In any case I am not too dogmatic about not using consubstantiation. :hehe:
If that's what they thought consubstantiation was, then I can understand their objection to the usage of the term.


First of all, what do these terms mean? Consubstantiation, as the word indicates, means a combination of two substances in such a way that by being mixed together they are fused into one substance or mass, consisting of different ingredients. For example, pouring the substances of water and wine together produces a watered wine (Weinwasser); blending honey and water produces mead; mixing meat and flour produces meat pies. Hence, in the Lord’s Supper consubstantiation would involve the concept of a spacial combination, mixture, and fusion of the body and blood of Christ with the consecrated elements as a new dual mass, as Eutyches once asserted the fusion of both natures in Christ into one nature.
This is not how I understand the combination of the substances in the Eucharist. Rather than the combination of water and wine, or honey and water, or meat and flour - I'd liken it to the combination of water and oil. The two substances are joined to each other, but they remain separate - not mixed.

I find it interesting that this person here equates "consubstantiation" with the Eutychian heresy. Because in the Council of Ephesus, the very phrase "consubstantial" is used to refute Eutychianism and Nestorianism:

We confess, then, our Lord Jesus Christ [...] one and the same consubstantial with the Father in Godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place...

And embarassingly for that Catholic that I quoted in my last post and for your informed RC friend, it is actually from the Catholic web site that this came!

In this agreed statement (http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state02.html) between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the term "consubstantiality" is repeatedly used to differentiate Orthodox teaching from the Eutychian heresy (using the same terminology as the council of Ephesus).

As a matter of fact, the Athanasian Creed contains the same idea, too:

He is God begotten of the substance of the Father before time, and he is man born of the substance of his mother in time.
We see the dual-substance doctrine appearing again.

It appears that they're using a slightly different term and in a slightly different way to what I am used to, though. "consubstantial" is actually, I just realised, the Latin equivalent of "homoousios". It does not describe the way that the two substances are united. Which further underscores how good the incarnation analogy is to the Lutheran understanding of Real Presence. Although it does show that perhaps the usage of the phrase "consubstantiation" is inappropriate.

Impanation signifies the spacial inclusion, concealment, incapsulation of an item within the bread, as in a capsule containing and enclosing the item. Hence, in the Lord’s Supper impanation would express the idea that the body of Christ, compressed into a very small body, lies concealed under the consecrated bread and is enclosed by it as by its container.
Never heard of that one before. But I don't think the analogy to the incarnation teaches this. In the incarnate Jesus, his divinity is not restricted to his humanity. Is it? I was under the impression that although the divine nature is fully represented in the human Jesus, it is not restricted to it. But I might be mistaken there.

These conceptions of the presence of Christ, that is, of His body and blood, in the Holy Supper are thoroughly unbiblical, materialistic, unworthy, and self-contradictory, and they are equally un-Lutheran and in contradiction to the Confessions of our church. . . .
Well, I agree with that. I don't think the analogy to the incarnation teaches either.

Of course, it is possible to use the term consubstantiation and not mean that the elements are changed.
Yes. That's the way that I meant it.

Yeah, my friend had a problem when I kept asking, if there can be only one substance, what does that to to the Incarnation? he did not have a good answer.
Yes, I'm interested to see what spl_cadet has to say in response to this. At the very least, it certainly seems to be a fatal blow to the "Luther's teaching on the Real Presence requires us to redefine our understanding of 'substance'" argument at least - the precedent was already set in the doctrinal decisions on the incarnation.

But we do not really teach impanation. It is still a good analogy though.
As noted above, I don't think that making an analogy to the incarnation teaches impanation either.

I think it was based on Aristotalian concepts of essences and accidents.
Yes.

I don't mind speculation either, and like you we should be careful not to take our private opinions and attempt to bind other's conciences to them.
:thumb:

[themuzicman]

Musicman, tell me why we should trust your word over a second century bishop. I think that the bishop was just a bit closer to Jesus and the Apostles than you are.

If it were just my word, you might have a point, although you'd have to demonstrate how a 2nd century bishop is more inerrant than I am. But it's not just my word. Most protestants have realized the error of transubstanciation, and I simply stand with them.

(Besides, wasn't Arias a bishop?)

Michael

[Jezz]

No. I'm saying it because if there is flesh that is literally Jesus' around before He dies that He hasn't pulled off of Himself, then He isn't human just as we are, and, as such is ineligible to be our atonement.

There is a vast difference between multiplying bread or turning water in to wine, and saying that there is a piece of Jesus' body that isn't attached to Him just before He dies.
The difference is not nearly so vast as you are making out. This amounts to an argument from incredulity. Jesus was capable of performing miracles - the Father had given Him that authority - this was just another. If He can multiply bread, why can't He multiply His flesh - thus not requiring Him to slice it off Himself? How would this make Him not fully human?

No, "this is my body" would clearly mean "this stuff here, that I hold in my hand - this stuff is my body. Not something else - this stuff.

Yes, the bread and the wine.
Correct. The bread and the wine is what Jesus was calling the body and blood.

Your objection begs the question because it assumes that the blood that Jesus was referring to was not the blood in the cup. In fact, it was the contents of the cup that Jesus was referring to when He said "this is my blood". And that which was in the cup had indeed been poured out. How else do you think the wine got into the cup?

Well, unless He slit His wrists, that would be a trick.
Correct - it would be a trick. Although, generally speaking, we tend to call them "miracles", not "tricks". You're not claiming that Jesus couldn't do tricks, are you?

Anyway, where do you now stand on your original objection?

Again, if there is more to Jesus' body than what is contained within the being that is sitting there, then He cannot be out atonement.
Addressed above. Jesus did lots of miracles - I don't see why multiplying His body and blood without injury to Himself couldn't be just another in a long line of miracles.

Ah, but Jesus also used the present tense "This is my blood", meaning it was present and had already been poured out, regardless of who done it.
Correct. His blood was poured out - out of the wine jar, and into the cup. What is so hard to understand about that? Your original objection simply misses the mark.

Again, if that was His blood, then Christ is ineligible to be our atonement, because He isn't the same kind of human Adam was.
Adam couldn't perform miracles though, could he? I suppose that means that if Jesus performs a miracle, then He wasn't the same kind of human as Adam, and therefore He's not eligible to be our atonement... :doh:

There is simply no contradiction between Jesus offering us His body and blood to eat in the manner that He did, and Him being truly human. You're manufacturing a contradiction where none exists, in order to try and garner support for your otherwise unsupported belief.

Funny how noone noticed this alleged contradiction - even when all those ferocious battles where going on about the way in which the human and divine natures were united in the person of Jesus, noone (to my knowledge) once asserted that Real Presence meant that Jesus wasn't truly human. Throughout the arguments about Christ's nature, they all took Real Presence for granted. Seems to me you're the one who's got things mixed up.

No, but I would expect that fallen men will misinterpret all kinds of things, this passage being one of them.
It never ceases to amaze me how you can say this statement with a straight face and completely fail to see the irony of it. :ahem:

Throughout history, the odd heretic here and there has misinterpreted scriptural passages. There's nothing new about that, I admit. But you're not asking me to believe that this was an odd heretic with a unique misinterpretation. You're asking me to believe that this was uniformly misinterpreted by everyone in the early Church.

In reality, your methodological stance is no different to that of liberal Christians who claim that the resurrection didn't really happen. They believe that the Gospels and the resurrection were originally intended to be figurative - that is the "plain meaning" of the text - and the early Christians uniformly misinterpreted this as a physical resurrection. And when quizzed on how everyone could get it so wrong, they simply wave it away with a "people make mistakes"... When I argue against such liberals, I tell them that I don't think that the early Christians were that ignorant or stupid, and that they are being arrogant. And that is exactly what I what I am telling you.

Let's just go back to passover and see what was going on there. That's the symbolism Jesus is drawing on.
Gee, if only the Christians of the first 15 centuries had thought to do that, then we could have avoided this whole problem, couldn't we? :doh: Hang on a minute - perhaps, the early Christians did think to do that, and came up with a completely different interpretation. Yeah, actually - that makes more sense historically speaking. :ahem:

See, the thing is that Jesus didn't merely draw on the symbolism of Passover, he extended it. Just as He did with so many things throughout His ministry, He took something Jewish, did something a bit different with it - investing it with new meaning, new ritual, new symbolism. You are simply assuming that Jesus was drawing on symbolism in the way that supports your argument. The early Christians knew of the significance of the Passover - heck, they even continued to celebrate it. It wasn't called "Easter" until some time later, and to this day the Orthodox still call it "Pascha". And yet they saw the Last Supper as meaning something different than what you are claiming.

Was there literal blood of the lamb poured out? Was there flesh made into bread?

Of course not.
What is your point?

Why ask 1st century greeks to understand it, when we have the souce of that meaning already written down for us?
Because the 1st century Greeks had access to exactly the same source of meaning that we do, and had the advantage of being able to go and check with an apostle to see if they'd got it right. Heck, many of them were Gentile God-fearers and converts to Judaism before they became Christian (remember that the apostles went first to the synagogues when they went to a new city). And they had the added advantage of only being one or two generations removed from the apostles themselves. Quite simply, they were in a much better position in every way to evaluate "what Jesus actually meant" than what you are.

Do you really think you understand the 1st century Jewish Passover better than 1st century Greeks did?

Argument by association. Ignatius knew Peter, therefore Peter must have told him what Jesus mean, therefore this must be correct.
Yes, it's argument by association - which is a deductive fallacy, but not an inductive fallacy, so there is no problem with it.

What I am doing is offering the historically most plausible explanation for the data that we have. The apostles, when doing their missionary work, did not simply drop in and say "Here's a gospel, have a nice read, I'll be off now". They took their time to educate their converts. We also know that the Eucharist was the most important Christian ritual. You are postulating the rather silly situation whereby Peter, Paul and Barnabas and the other apostles spent quite some time at Antioch teaching their new converts, yet didn't tell them the significance of their most important ritual and left them free to figure it out for themselves. :hrm:

Unfortunately, we don't know that Peter or any of the apostles interpreted that event beyond passing on the tradition, and, oddly enough, the only apostle to mention it in an epistle is Paul not Peter!
Paul and Barnabas spent a year in Antioch teaching the people there. So your objection that only Paul mentions the Eucharist in an epistle misses the mark completely. Besides which, you don't mean to claim that Peter was proclaiming a different Gospel to Paul, do you?

Also, you have now postulated the rather extraordinary situation whereby not only did the apostles leave their new converts to fend for themselves and try and figure out the significance of the most important Christian ritual by themselves. No, it gets even more ridiculous - not only did they all have to figure it out for themselves, but they all made exactly the same error when they did. This is so extraordinary, that the only way that it could have happened is through divine intervention. :smile:

The fact is, the only way to explain the uniformity of the belief from such an early time and over such a wide geographical area is to assume that the belief came from an earlier tradition starting at a single source - ie, Jesus and His apostles.

I won't claim that I'm inerrant if you won't claim that tradition is inerrant.
I'm don't have to claiming that either are inerrant. I am simply giving greater weight to the majority, and greater weight to those closer in time, space and culture to the events. Given that your interpretation of Eucharist is only 450 years old and a minority view since its inception, I find it rather more likely that the majority view of all Christians of all times is correct, rather than your view.

(This is SO typical of RCC. We've believed this for a long time. It HAS to be right. Sure. Ask Vatican I and II... or Luther... or Calvin.)
(This is SO typical of Protestants and the "I don't care what anybody else says, I just believe the Bible" crowd. The RCC believes it, therefore it HAS to be wrong.)

This is not just the RCC, Muz. Sure, the RCC got some things wrong. But in this case, we're not talking about just the RCC. We're talking about the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholic Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox (Copts, Armenians), the Lutherans (yes - even Luther), and the high Anglicans. In other words, all of the oldest denominations in the world. The vast majority of all Christians in all times and in all places have always believed this - and most importantly, the earliest Christians believed it. And noone believed otherwise until after the Reformation.

Besides which, this is completely irrelevant. It is simply good historical practice to note that the earliest Christians all taught Real Presence, and to deduce that the reason that they probably did is Jesus Himself was most probably the source of this belief. It is the only way to account for the complete universality of the teaching.

What's wrong with tradition anyway? Christianity is a revealed religion. The only way to preserve a revelation is by tradition.

And?
"And" the Assyrians are not Greek, but Semitic (like the Hebrews) - which means that your previous argument "why believe the Greeks" doesn't apply to them. The Semitic Christians agreed with the Greek Christians, and still do to this day.

If I were the first person to posit such a thought, you might have a better point to make, but clearly I'm not. So, your whole argument about this being me vs. 1500 years of RCC history is moot.
I didn't say 1500 years of RCC history - I said 1500 years of Church history. As I said, prior to the second-wave reformers, noone had your interpretation of the Last Supper. This is not just 1500 years of RCC history I'm talking about - it's 1500 years of all Church history.

As for you not being the first person to posit such a thought - well, that's true. But rewind to only 500 years ago, and noone has posited that thought. So clearly, at some point in history since then, there was a person who first posited such a thought. And clearly, that person was not Jesus.

Furthermore, there is no basis for saying that the RCC or tradition is inerrant, so this argument falls on that sword, too.
I never made any claim that the tradition is inerrant. The fact remains that, from the point of view of sound historical methodology, the best explanation for the absolute uniformity of early Christian understanding of the Eucharist is that it is exactly how Jesus Himself taught it.

Perhaps, as with so many other issues in the RCC, the RCC is flat out wrong, and needs correction once again.
Remove the plank from your own eye first, Muz... perhaps then you might be able to see clearly to remove the speck from the RCC. :lol:

[themuzicman]

The difference is not nearly so vast as you are making out. This amounts to an argument from incredulity. Jesus was capable of performing miracles - the Father had given Him that authority - this was just another. If He can multiply bread, why can't He multiply His flesh - thus not requiring Him to slice it off Himself? How would this make Him not fully human?

Because it would reflect being something other than human.

Correct. The bread and the wine is what Jesus was calling the body and blood.

But the real question is whether Jesus was being literal or symbolic.

Correct - it would be a trick. Although, generally speaking, we tend to call them "miracles", not "tricks". You're not claiming that Jesus couldn't do tricks, are you?

No, I'm saying that if there were elements of Jesus' body outside of the body that was present in the room with the disciples, then He isn't human, anymore.



Anyway, where do you now stand on your original objection?

Same place.

Addressed above. Jesus did lots of miracles - I don't see why multiplying His body and blood without injury to Himself couldn't be just another in a long line of miracles.

Other than the fact that creating body outside of His body makes Him something other than human.

There is simply no contradiction between Jesus offering us His body and blood to eat in the manner that He did, and Him being truly human. You're manufacturing a contradiction where none exists, in order to try and garner support for your otherwise unsupported belief.

So, you don't have a problem with an atonement whose whole body wasn't even present at His death? You honeslty think it's human to have pieces of your body outside of your physical being? I think not.

Funny how noone noticed this alleged contradiction - even when all those ferocious battles where going on about the way in which the human and divine natures were united in the person of Jesus, noone (to my knowledge) once asserted that Real Presence meant that Jesus wasn't truly human. Throughout the arguments about Christ's nature, they all took Real Presence for granted. Seems to me you're the one who's got things mixed up.


They had bigger fish to fry, like Arianism and Sabellianism and Socinianism and Pelagianism and...

It never ceases to amaze me how you can say this statement with a straight face and completely fail to see the irony of it. :ahem:

Well, I don't assume inerrancy in tradition, so it's easy for me.

Throughout history, the odd heretic here and there has misinterpreted scriptural passages. There's nothing new about that, I admit. But you're not asking me to believe that this was an odd heretic with a unique misinterpretation. You're asking me to believe that this was uniformly misinterpreted by everyone in the early Church.

It's happened before.

In reality, your methodological stance is no different to that of liberal Christians who claim that the resurrection didn't really happen. They believe that the Gospels and the resurrection were originally intended to be figurative - that is the "plain meaning" of the text - and the early Christians uniformly misinterpreted this as a physical resurrection. And when quizzed on how everyone could get it so wrong, they simply wave it away with a "people make mistakes"... When I argue against such liberals, I tell them that I don't think that the early Christians were that ignorant or stupid, and that they are being arrogant. And that is exactly what I what I am telling you.

Ah, yes... guilt by association. The vestige of the lost.

Gee, if only the Christians of the first 15 centuries had thought to do that, then we could have avoided this whole problem, couldn't we? :doh: Hang on a minute - perhaps, the early Christians did think to do that, and came up with a completely different interpretation. Yeah, actually - that makes more sense historically speaking. :ahem:

Doesn't mean they were right.

See, the thing is that Jesus didn't merely draw on the symbolism of Passover, he extended it. Just as He did with so many things throughout His ministry, He took something Jewish, did something a bit different with it - investing it with new meaning, new ritual, new symbolism. You are simply assuming that Jesus was drawing on symbolism in the way that supports your argument. The early Christians knew of the significance of the Passover - heck, they even continued to celebrate it. It wasn't called "Easter" until some time later, and to this day the Orthodox still call it "Pascha". And yet they saw the Last Supper as meaning something different than what you are claiming.

Yeah, Easter is the celebration of the God Aster. Wonderful move on the part of the Church, huh?

I'd really like to see the scripture that says that Jesus literally extended the passover.


As for tradition, I give it the respect it is due, but not the belief of inerrancy. The Church has blindly accepted (because the difference is really of no major consequence) transubstanciation, and now is a good time to really examine this doctrine to see if it's real. The reason it took 1500 years is that anyone who disagreed with the church was tortured into recanting, burned at the stake, or sent into exile. Finally, at the end of those 1500 years, someone stood up and said, "No, you're wrong," and we've been examining the doctrine that the monopoly on Christian doctrine has been manufacturing ever since to see what is accurate and what is not. And it is transubstanciation's turn.

Michael

[Jezz]

If it were just my word, you might have a point, although you'd have to demonstrate how a 2nd century bishop is more inerrant than I am.
Simple. A 2nd century bishop is 1700 years closer to the events themselves - closer in culture too - and therefore will know the history better. Therefore, they are less likely to fall into errors accumulating over time or caused by cultural influence than a 21st century American. This is a simple fact, Muz - you are more likely to make mistakes than they were. Be humble enough to admit it (the less humble you are, the more likely you are to make mistakes).

But it's not just my word. Most protestants have realized the error of transubstanciation, and I simply stand with them.
The majority of Protestants is still a minority of all Christians, Muz. And as I pointed out in previous post, the oldest Protestant denominations still believe in Real Presence - though none I know of believe in transubstantiation. Remember, this thread is about a defence of Real Presence in general - not about a specific type of Real Presence doctrine.

(Besides, wasn't Arias a bishop?)
:rofl: :lol: :lmbo: As if right on cue...

You wanted to know why a 2nd century bishop is more inerrant than you? Because a 2nd century bishop is more likely to know their 1st century history better than a historically illiterate 21st century American.

Arius (note the spelling) was not a bishop - he was a presbyter (aka, priest). He was in fact not allowed to vote at the Council of Nicea for that very reason. A few bishops took up his cause on his behalf (eg, Eusebius of Nicomedia - who later baptised Constantine).

[themuzicman]

Simple. A 2nd century bishop is 1700 years closer to the events themselves - closer in culture too - and therefore will know the history better. Therefore, they are less likely to fall into errors accumulating over time or caused by cultural influence than a 21st century American. This is a simple fact, Muz - you are more likely to make mistakes than they were. Be humble enough to admit it (the less humble you are, the more likely you are to make mistakes).

I already admitted to being errant. However, being closer to an event doesn't guarentee inerrancy.

The majority of Protestants is still a minority of all Christians, Muz. And as I pointed out in previous post, the oldest Protestant denominations still believe in Real Presence - though none I know of believe in transubstantiation. Remember, this thread is about a defence of Real Presence in general - not about a specific type of Real Presence doctrine.

Luther was in a SERIOUS minority when the Lutheran church started (albiet against Luther's wishes). However, he was right on some things where the church was wrong. Same goes for Calvin, Wesley, and a host of reformers. No, I'm not placing myself in their category, but I'm not the originator this argument, either.

The point is that majority belief doesn't make right.

Michael

[Maxentius]

The point is that majority belief doesn't make right.
Michael

Michael,

I don't think that Jezz is saying that a majority makes a point right, but rather that if an opinion was universally, or nearly universally held until fairly recently, that that view is probably a correct one. Unless there is a good scriptural reason to go against it, I think we should respect tradition. It helps us interpret Scripture, but it is under Scripture.

That is one reason I am still a Lutheran. :smile:

I have said it before, but I think here is where tradition is really valuable. It gives a "vote" to all the Christians who came before us.

Regarding Luther being in a minority. He did not see himself as creating new doctrines, but as restuning the Church to its foundation. He believed that many traditions contradicted Scripture and so had to go. The Book of Concord quotes the Fathers--tradition--quite extensively; and it was written by men who believed in Sola Scriptura! Correctly understood of course. :smile:

[themuzicman]

Michael,

I don't think that Jezz is saying that a majority makes a point right, but rather that if an opinion was universally, or nearly universally held until fairly recently, that that view is probably a correct one. Unless there is a good scriptural reason to go against it, I think we should respect tradition. It helps us interpret Scripture, but it is under Scripture.

And where we see tradition appears to be inconsistent with scripture, we correct it.

That is one reason I am still a Lutheran. :smile:

I have said it before, but I think here is where tradition is really valuable. It gives a "vote" to all the Christians who came before us.

No question there.

Regarding Luther being in a minority. He did not see himself as creating new doctrines, but as restuning the Church to its foundation. He believed that many traditions contradicted Scripture and so had to go. The Book of Concord quotes the Fathers--tradition--quite extensively; and it was written by men who believed in Sola Scriptura! Correctly understood of course. :smile:

I realize that, in fact, I even stated that the Lutheran church was started over Luther's objections.

Michael

[Maxentius]

And where we see tradition appears to be inconsistent with scripture, we correct it.

Yes, but here, Scripture and tradition agree that Jesus' body and blood are present when we receive Holy Communion. It is only recently that the doctrine was challenged. So, don't you think that those proposing that the tradition is wrong should have very strong arguments to counter the intuitive and plain meaning of the text? I do not think citing irrelavent analogies like "Jesus said he is a shepherd" are very strong arguments at all.

I realize that, in fact, I even stated that the Lutheran church was started over Luther's objections.

Michael

But Luther respected tradition, and he also believed that one can follow tradition as long as it does not go counter to Scripture. This is our Christian Liberty.

[themuzicman]

Yes, but here, Scripture and tradition agree that Jesus' body and blood are present when we receive Holy Communion. It is only recently that the doctrine was challenged. So, don't you think that those proposing that the tradition is wrong should have very strong arguments to counter the intuitive and plain meaning of the text? I do not think citing irrelavent analogies like "Jesus said he is a shepherd" are very strong arguments at all.

I never made those arguments. I'm saying that if there are elements of Jesus' body outside of His physical being before His death, then He does not have the same essense of humanity as Adam, and, as such, is not eligible to be the atonement for Adam's sin and the sin of mankind.

Furthermore, if, at the actual last supper, if Christ's body was already broken and His blood was already poured out, then what did He go to die for? The atonement is complete at that point. His body broken, blood poured out.

The fact is that His body was not yet broken, nor was His blood yet poured out. Thus, there must be a symbolic nature to communion and the last supper.

But Luther respected tradition, and he also believed that one can follow tradition as long as it does not go counter to Scripture. This is our Christian Liberty.

And I respect tradition within it's bounds, as well. We do stand on the shoulders of those who went before us. That doesn't, however, mean we shouldn't be foundation inspectors. If we're not standing on solid, scriptural tradition, we should be questioning it.

Michael

[Maxentius]

The fact is that His body was not yet broken, nor was His blood yet poured out. Thus, there must be a symbolic nature to communion and the last supper.



Jesus' human body goes through walls. It is a resurrection body so there is continuity and discontinuity between his body and ours.

Second, Jesus is also God. You are locked in a temporal mindset, God is eternal.

It is certainly possible for Jesus to perform another miracle, isn't it?

Also, how do you explain that all the early church got this wrong, intil Tyndale?

[themuzicman]

Jesus' human body goes through walls. It is a resurrection body so there is continuity and discontinuity between his body and ours.

Ah, but that is post resurrection. Glorified body, complete mission as a human being and all that.

Second, Jesus is also God. You are locked in a temporal mindset, God is eternal.

Well, in order for Jesus to be the human atoning sacrifice, He would need to be fully and essentially human, would He not? If there are pieces of His body outside of His physical being, it would be hard to say that He is essentially human.

No, I'm not denying His deity, but I am affirming that He is ONE PERSON with TWO ESSENCES, both of which must be fully embodied. If part of His body is outside of His body, that's not of the essense of what it means to be human.

It is certainly possible for Jesus to perform another miracle, isn't it?

Miricle, yes. To be the atonement without being a human like Adam in essense, no.

Also, how do you explain that all the early church got this wrong, intil Tyndale?

They had bigger fish to fry.

Michael

[Jezz]

But the real question is whether Jesus was being literal or symbolic.
No, that is not the real question. You are creating a false dichotomy. The Nicene Creed is called "the symbol of faith" - and it is also a literal statement of faith. In Semitic thought, symbols were literally true (Semitic Totality and all that).

Perhaps you meant to say "the real question is whether Jesus was being literal or using a metaphor?" In which case, it is obvious that Jesus was being literal - because that's how the target audience interpreted it. An example of it being interpreted this way is in John 6. In verse 52, we see that the Jews clearly understood Jesus to be speaking literally:

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

How did Jesus respond? Did He say: "Oh, no - I'm sorry. You've misunderstood. I didn't mean that literally - I was speaking metaphorically." No. Jesus goes on to reinforce what He has already said:

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Note especially verse 55: For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. He does not say: "You were mistaken. I didn't mean that my flesh was real food and my blood is real drink - I meant that my flesh is metaphorical food and my blood is metaphorical drink."

There is no stronger way that Jesus could have said that He wasn't speaking metaphorically. His listeners understood Him to be speaking metaphorically - and many of them left as a direct result.

So here, you have a problem:

1. If "my flesh is real food" is not strong enough for you to believe that it was meant literally, then what is? Perhaps Jesus should have said "my flesh really, truly, absolutely and positively is food"?
2. Most importantly, if Jesus really did mean to speak metaphorically, then why did He use language that His audience interpreted as being literal? And even more importantly, if we work on the assumption that perhaps Jesus didn't realise that they were being misled, then why did He continue to use similar language once their confusion became apparent (v52) instead of correcting their alleged misunderstanding? There are only two possible explanations: 1. either Jesus was trying to deliberately mislead His audience, or 2. Jesus did not mean to speak metaphorically at all.

No, I'm saying that if there were elements of Jesus' body outside of the body that was present in the room with the disciples, then He isn't human, anymore.
Merely restating your opinion a thousand times does not make it any more true. You're simply clutching at any straw you can to try and support your position, and this is one of the last straws you have left.

Anyway, where do you now stand on your original objection?

Same place.
Perhaps I need to remind your original objection was, then:

Furthermore, you'll note that "This is my blood of the Covenant, which is poured out for you." (Mat 26:28) Notice that the blood has to be poured out for them. It had not been poured out at the last supper, so it could not be that blood.

Your argument in a nutshell:
1. Jesus said that the blood had already been poured out.
2. Jesus' blood had not yet been poured out.
3. Therefore, the blood Jesus was speaking out was not really His blood.

This is supposed to disprove Real Presence, but your argument fails at point 2 because it assumes that the blood He was speaking of was not the blood in the cup. If the content of the cup was indeed the blood of Christ, then Jesus' blood had indeed already been poured out. Thus the only way your "disproof" can work is if you assume that the content of the cup was not Jesus' blood - ie, assuming the very thing that you set out to prove in the first place. In other words, your argument begs the question.

Other than the fact that creating body outside of His body makes Him something other than human.
Again merely asserted. I don't quite understand why this miracle is a hurdle for you, when Jesus did plenty of other miracles that made Him something other than human. (Of course, Jesus was something "other than human" in addition to being fully human, so your objection is meaningless anyway. In fact, if He wasn't something other than human, in addition to being fully human, then He couldn't have been an atonement for our sins either.)

So, you don't have a problem with an atonement whose whole body wasn't even present at His death?
This is an absolutely silly objection. You've seen the Passion, haven't you? You saw the flogging scene? Do you suppose that some of Jesus' flesh went missing after that? Was His atonement less effective because some of His flesh had already been stripped? Did the fact that some of flesh was missing mean that He was not fully human? Of course not.

Or what about the fact that human beings shed a tablespoon of skin cells every day? Given that Jesus was about 33 when He was crucified, that would make about 301 litres of skin cells (probably about 300 kg) shed during His lifetime. Was his atonement less effective because all this material was not present at His death? :lol: If Jesus could lose flesh and replace it throughout His lifetime (part of the normal human process, I might add), then why could He not produce some of His flesh for His disciples to eat and replace it immediately?

You honeslty think it's human to have pieces of your body outside of your physical being? I think not.
Repetition of the argument from incredulity for the 10,000th time. Careful that you don't cut your finger off, Muz - coz then you'll have a piece of your body outside your physical being and you won't be human anymore! :lol:

Jesus did many things that are beyond the capabilities of ordinary human beings like you and I. You seem to be confusing "fully human" with "ordinary human". Jesus was far from ordinary.

They had bigger fish to fry, like Arianism and Sabellianism and Socinianism and Pelagianism and...
Correct. The Eucharist was not a "fish" that needed to be "fried" - everyone already understood it properly. That is why no attempt was made to "fry" it.

Well, I don't assume inerrancy in tradition, so it's easy for me.
You assume inerrancy in your own tradition.

Throughout history, the odd heretic here and there has misinterpreted scriptural passages. There's nothing new about that, I admit. But you're not asking me to believe that this was an odd heretic with a unique misinterpretation. You're asking me to believe that this was uniformly misinterpreted by everyone in the early Church.

It's happened before.
No, it hasn't. I challenge you to find me one example of a doctrine that was uniformly believed by the early Christians which later turned out to be false.

Ah, yes... guilt by association. The vestige of the lost.
No, it's guilt by being guilty. Your argument looks like this:

1. The Bible does not teach X.
2. The early Christians all unanimously believed X.
3. The early Christians were all ignorant and/or stupid of certain relevant facts and therefore got it wrong.

where X = "Real Presence". Simply substituting X = "Real Resurrection" will give you the argument that liberal Christians use. The arguments are the same because they rely on the same assumption for their validity - ie, that the early Christians were either ignorant of the relevant facts, or stupid.

Tell me, if the early Christians were so gullible as to uniformly mistake a metaphorical reference to Jesus' blood for a literal one, then how can we have any confidence that they weren't so gullible as to uniformly mistake a metaphorical resurrection for a literal one? How can you justify your own argument, while simultaneously rejecting the liberal argument?

Look at this another way: how was the canon of Scripture formed? By universal consensus of the early Christians. If that is an acceptable means for determining the very canon of scripture (without which your "sola scriptura extremis" position would be untenable), then why is it not an acceptable means for determining the correct meaning of the Eucharist?

Doesn't mean they were right.
That seems to be the extent of your argument. "The early Christians might not have been right. Therefore, Real Presence is a false doctrine."

Why would you trust the Scriptures? Just because they were decided upon by consensus of the early Christians, that doesn't mean that they were right... :ahem:

Yeah, Easter is the celebration of the God Aster. Wonderful move on the part of the Church, huh?
Although this is just an irrelevant, off-topic swipe at the Church and need not be addressed at this point, I'm going to answer anyway.

Yes, it was an excellent move on the part of the Church. After all, who remembers who "Aster" was these days? When we hear the word "Easter", who do we think of - Jesus or Aster? Adopting the Easter celebration was a very effective way of nudging Aster out of the consciousness of society, and replacing it with Jesus. The pagan festival of Aster has long become sanctified in service of the Triune God as a result of this move on the part of the Church.

The aim of the Church is not to destroy those parts of creation that are not sanctified. It role of the Church is to sanctify the whole world. Sometimes that will necessitate destruction of unholy things, but not always.

Do you think that the Church did the wrong thing in sanctifying a previously unholy festival?

I'd really like to see the scripture that says that Jesus literally extended the passover.
How about you show me the scripture that says that Jesus was speaking metaphorically of the presence of His body & blood first? :teeth:

That the Eucharist was not intended to be just another Passover meal is easy to demonstrate. Ask yourself the following questions:

1. How often was Passover separated?
2. How often was the Eucharist separated?

As for tradition, I give it the respect it is due, but not the belief of inerrancy.
No, you don't give it the respect that it's due at all. As for belief of its inerrancy - the scripture that we have is only as reliable as the tradition that gave it to us. No good believing in an inerrant scripture if they've handed down to us the wrong books...

What it boils down to is this, Muz:

If consensus of the historical Church (ie, tradition) is not reliable, then the canon of scripture is not reliable. Clearly, you believe that the canon of scripture is reliable, and therefore it logically follows that tradition is reliable. Therefore, it is inconsistent of you to reject a tradition that was so widely On the other hand, if consensus of the historical Churchi

The Church has blindly accepted (because the difference is really of no major consequence) transubstanciation,
Well, that's arrogant - you can't understand the difference between transubstantiation (note the spelling, Muz) and other forms of Real Presence doctrine, so you immediately conclude that is of no major consequence? You don't suppose that your lack of understanding comes from ignorance, or perhaps a lack of capacity (or more likely, a lack of will) to understand? I suppose next thing you'll be telling me that the difference between Nestorianism, Eutychianism and orthodox Christology is "of no major consequence" either... :ahem:

...and now is a good time to really examine this doctrine to see if it's real.
Been there. Done that. Nothing has changed in the last 2000 years that could have made it false. It is a doctrine that is consistent with scripture, and therefore it should be accepted.

The reason it took 1500 years is that anyone who disagreed with the church was tortured into recanting, burned at the stake, or sent into exile.
Conspiracy theory with no actual evidence provided. Where is your evidence that anyone disagreed with true presence during this time?

Finally, at the end of those 1500 years, someone stood up and said, "No, you're wrong," and we've been examining the doctrine that the monopoly on Christian doctrine has been manufacturing ever since to see what is accurate and what is not. And it is transubstanciation's turn.
Again, this is exactly the same argument that every heretic uses to argue for their heretical view. Liberals use to support their views - in their view, its the resurrection's turn. JWs use it to support Arianism - claiming that the evil Church stamped it out. The pro-gay lobby use it to argue that the Church has misunderstood the meaning of the passages on homosexuality, etc, etc. You are simply one more in a very long line of heretics.

Luther's Reformation was not about throwing away tradition. It was a return to the correct tradition - after realising that the current teachings of the RCC were not in line with what the Church had traditionally taught.

[themuzicman]

No, that is not the real question. You are creating a false dichotomy. The Nicene Creed is called "the symbol of faith" - and it is also a literal statement of faith. In Semitic thought, symbols were literally true (Semitic Totality and all that).

Perhaps you meant to say "the real question is whether Jesus was being literal or using a metaphor?" In which case, it is obvious that Jesus was being literal - because that's how the target audience interpreted it. An example of it being interpreted this way is in John 6. In verse 52, we see that the Jews clearly understood Jesus to be speaking literally:

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

How did Jesus respond? Did He say: "Oh, no - I'm sorry. You've misunderstood. I didn't mean that literally - I was speaking metaphorically." No. Jesus goes on to reinforce what He has already said:

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Note especially verse 55: For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. He does not say: "You were mistaken. I didn't mean that my flesh was real food and my blood is real drink - I meant that my flesh is metaphorical food and my blood is metaphorical drink."

There is no stronger way that Jesus could have said that He wasn't speaking metaphorically. His listeners understood Him to be speaking metaphorically - and many of them left as a direct result.

You're arguing from silence. Never does Jesus say that He means that literally. In fact, Jesus said several things that were true, but that the Jews around Him misunderstood, and He didn't correct them. The Pharisees thought Jesus meant that He could literally rebuild THE temple in three days, and Jesus never corrected. Jesus said that those who received the Word in the OT were gods, and the people thought He meant that in a literal sense, and He never corrected them.

So, if you're going to say that every time the Jews took what Jesus said literally, and Jesus didn't correct them, that it MUST be correct, then David is a god, and Jesus was going to rebuild the literal stone temple in three days. (I'm sure there are more examples, but these two came to mind.)

So here, you have a problem:

1. If "my flesh is real food" is not strong enough for you to believe that it was meant literally, then what is? Perhaps Jesus should have said "my flesh really, truly, absolutely and positively is food"?
2. Most importantly, if Jesus really did mean to speak metaphorically, then why did He use language that His audience interpreted as being literal? And even more importantly, if we work on the assumption that perhaps Jesus didn't realise that they were being misled, then why did He continue to use similar language once their confusion became apparent (v52) instead of correcting their alleged misunderstanding? There are only two possible explanations: 1. either Jesus was trying to deliberately mislead His audience, or 2. Jesus did not mean to speak metaphorically at all.

Seems that (1) is likely, since He does it more than once.

Merely restating your opinion a thousand times does not make it any more true. You're simply clutching at any straw you can to try and support your position, and this is one of the last straws you have left.

Might help if you address the issue.

Perhaps I need to remind your original objection was, then:

Furthermore, you'll note that "This is my blood of the Covenant, which is poured out for you." (Mat 26:28) Notice that the blood has to be poured out for them. It had not been poured out at the last supper, so it could not be that blood.

Your argument in a nutshell:
1. Jesus said that the blood had already been poured out.
2. Jesus' blood had not yet been poured out.
3. Therefore, the blood Jesus was speaking out was not really His blood.

This is supposed to disprove Real Presence, but your argument fails at point 2 because it assumes that the blood He was speaking of was not the blood in the cup. If the content of the cup was indeed the blood of Christ, then Jesus' blood had indeed already been poured out. Thus the only way your "disproof" can work is if you assume that the content of the cup was not Jesus' blood - ie, assuming the very thing that you set out to prove in the first place. In other words, your argument begs the question.

Then why did Jesus still have to go to the cross, if the covenant in His blood was already poured out, and His body already broken? Wasn't the purpose of the breaking of the body and pouring of the blood atonement and covenant?

Again merely asserted. I don't quite understand why this miracle is a hurdle for you, when Jesus did plenty of other miracles that made Him something other than human. (Of course, Jesus was something "other than human" in addition to being fully human, so your objection is meaningless anyway. In fact, if He wasn't something other than human, in addition to being fully human, then He couldn't have been an atonement for our sins either.)

Technically, Jesus had to be unblemished, just as the sacrificial lamb of the OT.

This is an absolutely silly objection. You've seen the Passion, haven't you? You saw the flogging scene? Do you suppose that some of Jesus' flesh went missing after that? Was His atonement less effective because some of His flesh had already been stripped? Did the fact that some of flesh was missing mean that He was not fully human? Of course not.

That was part of the sacrificial process. He had already submitted Himself to be killed. You don't get the symbolism of the sacrificing of the lamb, do you...

Or what about the fact that human beings shed a tablespoon of skin cells every day? Given that Jesus was about 33 when He was crucified, that would make about 301 litres of skin cells (probably about 300 kg) shed during His lifetime. Was his atonement less effective because all this material was not present at His death? :lol: If Jesus could lose flesh and replace it throughout His lifetime (part of the normal human process, I might add), then why could He not produce some of His flesh for His disciples to eat and replace it immediately?

You gotta be kidding me. You're honestly going to say that Jesus sliced off a piece of His body to give to His disciples? You've never heard of the concept of the unblemished lamb?

Repetition of the argument from incredulity for the 10,000th time. Careful that you don't cut your finger off, Muz - coz then you'll have a piece of your body outside your physical being and you won't be human anymore! :lol:

Not and be perfect.

Jesus did many things that are beyond the capabilities of ordinary human beings like you and I. You seem to be confusing "fully human" with "ordinary human". Jesus was far from ordinary.

Jesus did them? Or the Holy Spirit did them?

Correct. The Eucharist was not a "fish" that needed to be "fried" - everyone already understood it properly. That is why no attempt was made to "fry" it.

Sure, just like the trinity, right?

You assume inerrancy in your own tradition.

No, actually, I don't. I've never appealed to my own tradition as proof. And I expect an apology for blatantly putting words in my mouth.

No, it hasn't. I challenge you to find me one example of a doctrine that was uniformly believed by the early Christians which later turned out to be false.

Impassibility.

No, it's guilt by being guilty. Your argument looks like this:

1. The Bible does not teach X.
2. The early Christians all unanimously believed X.
3. The early Christians were all ignorant and/or stupid of certain relevant facts and therefore got it wrong.

No, my argument goes like this:

1. Someone asserted X.
2. Everyone else had bigger issues to deal with and said "OK", and that was the end of it.

where X = "Real Presence". Simply substituting X = "Real Resurrection" will give you the argument that liberal Christians use. The arguments are the same because they rely on the same assumption for their validity - ie, that the early Christians were either ignorant of the relevant facts, or stupid.

You can call the early church stupid if you want to, but you're putting words in my mouth again. Which is usually a sure sign that you can't refute the actual point.

Tell me, if the early Christians were so gullible as to uniformly mistake a metaphorical reference to Jesus' blood for a literal one, then how can we have any confidence that they weren't so gullible as to uniformly mistake a metaphorical resurrection for a literal one? How can you justify your own argument, while simultaneously rejecting the liberal argument?

More putting words in my mouth.

Look at this another way: how was the canon of Scripture formed?

God spoke as the authors were carried along by the Holy Spirit. Various church fathers came up with various lists of what they felt were valid books of the canon, and a group in North Africa (?) finally came up with the list that all Christians use today. Not until the 1500s did the RCC actually have a council, and they decided to add a few books.

By universal consensus of the early Christians. If that is an acceptable means for determining the very canon of scripture (without which your "sola scriptura extremis" position would be untenable), then why is it not an acceptable means for determining the correct meaning of the Eucharist?

Because there is a difference between assigning criterion to the selection of what books we consider inspired, and declaring our own interpretation as inerrant.

That seems to be the extent of your argument. "The early Christians might not have been right. Therefore, Real Presence is a false doctrine."

Make up your mind. Is it because I think they're stupid, or because they might not be right?

Why would you trust the Scriptures? Just because they were decided upon by consensus of the early Christians, that doesn't mean that they were right... :ahem:

No basis for arguing with it.

Although this is just an irrelevant, off-topic swipe at the Church and need not be addressed at this point, I'm going to answer anyway.

Yes, it was an excellent move on the part of the Church. After all, who remembers who "Aster" was these days? When we hear the word "Easter", who do we think of - Jesus or Aster? Adopting the Easter celebration was a very effective way of nudging Aster out of the consciousness of society, and replacing it with Jesus. The pagan festival of Aster has long become sanctified in service of the Triune God as a result of this move on the part of the Church.

I don't disagree with that as far as it goes. However, that was a nice side step for scriptural basis for saying that CHrist extended the literal passover.

The aim of the Church is not to destroy those parts of creation that are not sanctified. It role of the Church is to sanctify the whole world. Sometimes that will necessitate destruction of unholy things, but not always.

Do you think that the Church did the wrong thing in sanctifying a previously unholy festival?

No. The point is that if the church REALLY believed that Jesus was extending the passover, it would be a shame to rename it something else.

How about you show me the scripture that says that Jesus was speaking metaphorically of the presence of His body & blood first? :teeth:

1) His body wasn't broken when he said "this is my body, which is broken for you."
2) His blood hadn't been poured out when he said, "this is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out."

I'm not sure how much clearer it has to be. Even if it was literally His body and blood, it hadn't been poured out, because the atonement hadn't been made, and the new covenant not established!

Plus: "Do this in rememberance of me." If Jesus meant for that to literally be His body and His blood, why call it a "rememberance?" We see signs on buildings and such that say, "In memory of..." That ediface is a symbol to remind us of that particular person. It isn't that literal person. Same concept.

That the Eucharist was not intended to be just another Passover meal is easy to demonstrate. Ask yourself the following questions:

1. How often was Passover separated?
2. How often was the Eucharist separated?

Well, is it an extension of the passover or not? (Just FYI, the last supper WAS the celebration of the passover, but Jesus was drawing symbolic comparison of Himself to the bread and the blood, which were required in the first passover, which resulted in having the angel of death pass over their house, and which ultilately led to Israel's freedom. There may be no better symbolic representation of atonement than the first passover.)

No, you don't give it the respect that it's due at all. As for belief of its inerrancy - the scripture that we have is only as reliable as the tradition that gave it to us. No good believing in an inerrant scripture if they've handed down to us the wrong books...

What it boils down to is this, Muz:

If consensus of the historical Church (ie, tradition) is not reliable, then the canon of scripture is not reliable. Clearly, you believe that the canon of scripture is reliable, and therefore it logically follows that tradition is reliable. Therefore, it is inconsistent of you to reject a tradition that was so widely On the other hand, if consensus of the historical Church

One does not need to embrace the entire tradition to accept the canon. That's proof by association and nothing more. X must be true and X is like Y, therefore Y must be true. Doesn't work.

Well, that's arrogant - you can't understand the difference between transubstantiation (note the spelling, Muz) and other forms of Real Presence doctrine, so you immediately conclude that is of no major consequence? You don't suppose that your lack of understanding comes from ignorance, or perhaps a lack of capacity (or more likely, a lack of will) to understand? I suppose next thing you'll be telling me that the difference between Nestorianism, Eutychianism and orthodox Christology is "of no major consequence" either... :ahem:

Why would I say that?

Been there. Done that. Nothing has changed in the last 2000 years that could have made it false. It is a doctrine that is consistent with scripture, and therefore it should be accepted.

Yeah, that whole protestant thing wasn't really necessary, anyway.

Conspiracy theory with no actual evidence provided. Where is your evidence that anyone disagreed with true presence during this time?

You mean other than the heretic burnings?

Again, this is exactly the same argument that every heretic uses to argue for their heretical view. Liberals use to support their views - in their view, its the resurrection's turn. JWs use it to support Arianism - claiming that the evil Church stamped it out. The pro-gay lobby use it to argue that the Church has misunderstood the meaning of the passages on homosexuality, etc, etc. You are simply one more in a very long line of heretics.

I didn't say taht the church was entirely evil. I said that disagreement with the church was grounds for serious consequences.

Luther's Reformation was not about throwing away tradition. It was a return to the correct tradition - after realising that the current teachings of the RCC were not in line with what the Church had traditionally taught.

Except for sola scriptura and sola fide and sola gracia and...

Michael

[spl_cadet]

You're arguing from silence. Never does Jesus say that He means that literally.

What part of "Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" do you not understand If someone says to me "I'm telling you the truth, if you don't eat me and drink my blood you're dead" I'm generally going to think that they are psychotic but I'm going to be quite certain that they are dead serious. The rules of grammar simply do not allow for an alternate reading of that statement.

[themuzicman]

What part of "Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" do you not understand If someone says to me "I'm telling you the truth, if you don't eat me and drink my blood you're dead" I'm generally going to think that they are psychotic but I'm going to be quite certain that they are dead serious. The rules of grammar simply do not allow for an alternate reading of that statement.

So, every time Jesus says "truly truly" (NASB translation from John 6), the topic of discussion must be taken literally?

John 10:1
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber.

So, there is a literal door that one enters the fold, and if they don't enter that way, they're a theif and a robber? LITERALLY?

Did all the priests and biships enter through that literal door? Where is this literal door?

(Or, gee, should we read on to find that Jesus has used truly truly to refer to a symbolic thing?)

And let's not go too much further, where Jesus says:
John 10:7
So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.

Literal or symbolic? (Here's a hint: Jesus is a human, not a piece of wood.)


So, there goes that line of reasoning. Care to try again?

Michael

[Jezz]

You're arguing from silence