Religious Discussion Thread

[The DoggFather]

Volunteered at a Salvo's kitchen for the homeless, and this was some of the bread that was donated.

View attachment 73020

That's awesome! And you're awesome for volunteering.

 

[The DoggFather]

Man strips naked, in the Vatican, to stop children dying in Ukraine....

Man strips naked in Vatican church to protest against Ukraine war

A man stripped off his clothes and stood naked on the main altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City in what was believed to a protest against the Ukraine war. He was handed over to the Italian police.

www.indiatoday.in

 

[The DoggFather]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1664357305339502595

 

[Caveman]

Let's take a look at the bible to see if the Eucharist is a mockery of Christ's finished work on the Cross.

“‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (John 6:51–52).

Jesus again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56).

Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct “misunderstandings,” for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically as originally thought but literally, that's why in the following verses his disciples could not listen to it anymore and walked away:

In John 6:60 we read: “Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’” (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) “After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66).

This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.

But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have “to eat my flesh and drink my blood.”

The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor.

Let's see what St Paul says in the bible:
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16).

St Paul goes on to say in the bible:
“Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29).

“To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? St Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.


Now let's look at what the early Christians believed about the Eucharist:

* St Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).

* Forty years later, St Justin Martyr, wrote, “Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66:1–20).

* Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. “You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish” (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).

The early church took John 6 literally, it was Unanimous. There is no record from the early centuries in which the literal interpretation is opposed. For the first 1500 years of Christianity ALL Christians believed the Eucharist to be the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, until the protestant reformation in 1517AD it then began to change.

So I ask myself the question: I have the bible which is clear on the real presence of Christ in communion, I also have access to what the very early Christians believed about the Eucharist in the 1st, 2nd & 3rd centuries. Am I going to Listen to Jesus' words in the bible and reaffirmed by the early Christians OR am I going to believe a guy called Caveman who rejects the Eucharist in the year 2023? It's a no brainer for me TBH.

A couple of responses to your earlier thoughts, a lot of the arguments used are pretty common among Catholics (who actually have a solid opinion on the matter), and the old early church fathers claim is very easily refuted if you were to take some time and read some of the early works.

Let's take a look at the bible to see if the Eucharist is a mockery of Christ's finished work on the Cross.


“‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (John 6:51–52).

Did jesus not give His flesh on the Cross once and for all as a sacrifice for the sins of those who would belive? Secondly notice the future tense that is used when speaking of his atonement ('and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’, it is just that a future event- something that had not happened yet, He is speaking of His atonement for sin on the Cross, which also speaks to your later argument that these followers rejected the Eucharist, how could they reject the lords table if no sacrificial event had happened yet?

My question to you is why not use the actual event of the last supper as support for the claim of transubstantiation? This is the very event that Christ broke bread and shared it in remembrance (Interestingly catholic priests hand out whole wafers to their communicates - no breaking necessary) and also shared in the fruit of the vine, surely this would be the the go to source for such a belief? Yet even there it is clear he is referencing the body and blood that is spent for many on the Cross, there is no eating of his flesh or drinking his blood as he is right there with them, not to mention such doctrine would fly in the face levitical law (Lev 17:4) making him no longer sinless and no longer a sufficient sacrifice. And before you argue that it was the new covenant like many have before, let me ask you when did the new covenant take place? It was after his death and resurrection which had not occurred at this time.

Jesus again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56).

Are we to say that Christ also has hinges and a door handle as per John chapter 10 or that he is a vine with leaves and roots as per John 14. Jesus regularly spoke metaphorically and in this case literally said His words were spirit (v63) Furthermore I had the experience of partaking in the Eucharist as a child does that not mean that I am now assured of eternal life? The passage above would suggest that anyone who partakes in such a thing is guaranteed eternal life, that being there is no need for christ crucified or perhaps that part is not counted literal in Catholicism?


Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct “misunderstandings,” for there were none.


Again there are seven "I Am" statements in John, are we to take them all literally?

As mentioned above it would seem that you have missed a critical part of Christ's teaching in this passage where he says it's the spirit that gives life and that words he has spoken are spirit and life, he is clearly speaking in spiritual terms lest He would have said my words are literal.

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life". (John 6:63)


Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically as originally thought but literally, that's why in the following verses his disciples could not listen to it anymore and walked away:


In John 6:60 we read: “Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’” (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) “After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66).

Again as I alluded to earlier how could there be rejection of the Eucharist when this event happened before the the event that was the last supper (the Eucharist)? At this time Christ had not given Himself as a sacrifice on the Cross, I noticed you like many Catholics use these verses as support for transubstantiation, but I ask you how could anyone take part in the lords supper and furthermore reject it if Christ at this time had not literally given the sacrifice of His body on the Cross? Jesus' point here was clearly an analogy, just as eating and drinking are necessary for physical life, so also is belief in his sacrificial death on the cross necessary for eternal life. The eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood symbolises the essential need for accepting Jesus’ work on the cross.


Furthermore what do you do with passages such as this which speaks of the sacrifice of Christ once for all? There is no room in scripture for the continual sacrifice of Christ, the very thing the Catholic Church teaches is what Christ came to abolish, no more need for preists to stand between man and God offering sacrifices, as our Lord said on the Cross "It is finished", the atonement for man was complete. Man does not need priests to interced for them to the Father, Christ himself is our intercessor.

25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. 26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. (Hebrews 7:25-27)

Then there is this scripture, notice Christ sits down at the right hand of God waiting - not constantly dividing up parts of his body for the sanctification of saints, to the contrary the author looks poorly on the the former practice of priests constantly offering the same sacrifices which can never take away sins.

9 then He said, "BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL." He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13 waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. (Hebrews 10:9-14)




This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.


But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have “to eat my flesh and drink my blood.”

Again Jesus said what he spoke was spirit and life, yes, spiritual and essential, the crowds did not leave him because the doctrine of the lords table but rather because he spoke what was perceived to be blasphemy, you said it yourself, He called himself the bread that came down from heaven. He made himself level with God. This was sacrilege, absolutely detestable to his hearers as stated in verse 41 where ot says "Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, "I am the bread that came down out of heaven."


The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor.

The best words for a metaphor are those that paint the most appropriate picture, to say that any word can't be used as a metaphor is "clutching at straws". To the contrary when was the last time you gnawed at that soft wafer you are given at communion?


Let's see what St Paul says in the bible:

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16).

Again context is key here, firstly this passage is in reference to those who would eat the food sacrificed to idols and as a result the above verse is limited to the refutation of such error. Further more again notice the word 'in the' (I say word as the Greek word here is tou meaning in the) it is not a participation on the body but rather in it. We are not gnawing on it but rather participating in the communion of which we are to take in remembrance of Him and Him crucified.



St Paul goes on to say in the bible:

“Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29).


“To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? St Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

Again context is needed, this was a revoke to those who were gluttonous at the lords table feasting on the bread and getting drunk on the wine, these were people who had no respect for Christ when coming together as the church should in delight of Christs finished work on the cross.

Remember in verse 26 Paul says as often as you do this you proclaim the lords death - communion is just that a declaration and a celebration of Christ's finished work, therefore is it not right to say that anyone who takes communion in an unworthy manner is worthy of judgment? One who does take serious the propitiation for our sins surely will be judged against that which was spilled at Calvary?

Also in vs 24 and 25 of the passege your quoting we see the reoccurring phrase 'do this in remembrance of me', why would Christ ask us to take the bread and the wine in remembrance of Him and all He achieved at the initiation of the new covenant if he was constantly shedding his body and blood as a sacrifice, why would you be called to remember something that is currently happening?


Now let's look at what the early Christians believed about the Eucharist:


* St Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).

Again it would seem you've missed vital parts of Ignatius' letter to Smyrnaeans, the letter itself was addressing those who denied jesus came in the flesh, as in his incarnation:

"For he suffered all these things for our sakes, in order that we might be saved; and he truly suffered just as he truly raised himself— not, as certain unbelievers say, that he suffered in appearance only (it is they who exist in appearance only!). (Ch 2)

"For what good does it do me if someone praises me but blasphemes my Lord by not confessing that he was clothed in the flesh? (Ch 5)

Ignatius point when read in context was the dismissal of communion because they denied his coming in the flesh.

Furthermore again notice past tense Ignatius uses whilst talking of the Eucharist: "flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again”

There is no room here for ongoing feasting on Christ's flesh for the atonement of sins as he clearly indicates.

Note that Tertullian at a similar time addressed the same false teaching having no issue alluding to the Eucharist as figurative:

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there was first an actual body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure,” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 4, Chapter 40).



* Forty years later, St Justin Martyr, wrote, “Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66:1–20).


Again context and looking at Justin's whole known works is imperative here, Justin addressed on multiple occasions the fallacy of eating human flesh labelling it "fabulous and shameful deeds,” of which Christians are falsely accused, (First Apology, Chapter 26), he and the wider Christian community at the time fought hard to dismiss such abhorrent notions.

He also spoke of the Eucharist (literally translated "thanksgiving" in Justins works) as something to be taken in remembrance of his body and as a commemoration of his blood:

“the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood"(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).



* Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. “You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish” (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).


Origen did make it clear in the below statement that the Eucharist a symbol of gratitude.

“We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Origen, Against Celsus, 8.57).


The early church took John 6 literally, it was Unanimous. There is no record from the early centuries in which the literal interpretation is opposed. For the first 1500 years of Christianity ALL Christians believed the Eucharist to be the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, until the protestant reformation in 1517AD it then began to change.

The early church started with the baptism of the the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, thus the early church started at Pentecost. The earliest of church fathers are those of the new testament of whom did not teach transubstantiation, infact they taught that Christ died once for all (Rom 6:23, Heb 9:26,28, 10:10, 1Pet 3:18) raised from the dead, never to die again, there is no room in the scriptures for a jesus that is continually dying.

As of extrabiblical sources where the words of which are not inspired there are many:

The Didache, written in the late-first or early-second century, referred to the elements of the Lord’s table as “spiritual food and drink” (The Didache, 9).

Clement of Alexandria explained that, “The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2).

Then you have the following of the early church who also wrote of the spiritual context of the Eucharist that I'm happy to share should you require their opinions.

Cyprian (200–258), Hippolytus (180– 230), Eusebius of Caesarea (263–340) Athanasius (296–373), Augustine (354–430),


So I ask myself the question: I have the bible which is clear on the real presence of Christ in communion, I also have access to what the very early Christians believed about the Eucharist in the 1st, 2nd & 3rd centuries.

There is plenty there to refute your stance on what the early church fathers taught.

Remembering that the writings of man can not compare to scripture and that scripture alone should be our source of the knowledge and will of God.

 

[John Matrix]

Man strips naked, in the Vatican, to stop children dying in Ukraine....

What does the Vatican have to do with the war and the killing of children in the Ukraine, guy need helps no doubt.

 

[Kelpie03]

Lol I'm an evangelical Christian , blokes your talking about are word of faith movement / prosperity gospel.

It's true that denomination has little bearing on salvation, however that is only true of biblical denominations, I know very little of the Orthodox Church however the christ of the Roman Catholic Church is very different to the biblical Christ found in the bible and as result the Catholic christ has no more power to save than that of the christ of the Mormans or that of the JWs.

To have a christ that must be called down, manipulated at will, and eaten alive at the discretion of the priests for the salvation of its people, is a mockery of Christ's finished work at the Cross.

To align with such doctrine is dangerous at the very least for anyone who believes Christ's work was complete through his death and resurrection.

I thought that their was only God, and if so then for all Christians there sould be only ONE Jesus Christ, not a different One for each different demonation, but if you want to believe that their is a different Christ for each demonation please do so. I chose to believe that the Catholic Church followed Christ instructions from year DOT and has by far followed his teachings more comprenhensively than then any of the Protistants.
Regarding your second line, I often thought that their has been different interperations of the bible, and some so called Christians (who want to keep their finger in the Heavenly pie in case their is one) have chosen to interperate it in a way designed to suit themselves and attract people who dont want to carry a Cross because following Jesus means carrying a Cross. Your comment 2nd line (can't be bothered to coppy it) is very blasfamous and proves contempt for Christ's work on earth,
My advice to you is stop looking for reasons to find fault with the Catholic Church and start paying homage to Jesus Christ through Prayer, like all practicing Catholics do, because praying is what Jesus told us to do.

 

[XPICATE]

I’m religious to the point that i’m sure there’d be a few prayers if i was floating on a tyre in the middle of the ocean. What i don’t really understand about religion though is that churchies believe heaven is the most awesome place ever but are shit scared of going there.

 

[The DoggFather]

I’m religious to the point that i’m sure there’d be a few prayers if i was floating on a tyre in the middle of the ocean. What i don’t really understand about religion though is that churchies believe heaven is the most awesome place ever but are shit scared of going there.

I don't know about "churchies" but I can't wait to leave this hell-hole.

 

[XPICATE]

I don't know about "churchies" but I can't wait to leave this hell-hole.

haha, i hear you.I think it was cronus who presided over the era of heaven on earth.It could be like that always but it’s far from it.

You know what i mean though re practicing christians? The whole faith is built around heaven and hell but everyone is scared of dying.

 

[The DoggFather]

haha, i hear you.I think it was cronus who presided over the era of heaven on earth.It could be like that always but it’s far from it.

You know what i mean though re practicing christians? The whole faith is built around heaven and hell but everyone is scared of dying.

Yeah I get you, I can't answer on their behalf but if you are so sure in your faith then you would welcome death and not be scared of it.

I'm not suicidal or anything but can't wait to go home. Been close many times but I'm still stuck here.

 

[XPICATE]

Yeah I get you, I can't answer on their behalf but if you are so sure in your faith then you would welcome death and not be scared of it.

I'm not suicidal or anything but can't wait to go home. Been close many times but I'm still stuck here.

Have you ever smoked dmt?

 

[The DoggFather]

Have you ever smoked dmt?

Na never.

Don't know much about it.

 

[dogwhisperer]

Did jesus not give His flesh on the Cross once and for all as a sacrifice for the sins of those who would belive? Secondly notice the future tense that is used when speaking of his atonement ('and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’, it is just that a future event- something that had not happened yet, He is speaking of His atonement for sin on the Cross, which also speaks to your later argument that these followers rejected the Eucharist, how could they reject the lords table if no sacrificial event had happened yet?

My question to you is why not use the actual event of the last supper as support for the claim of transubstantiation? This is the very event that Christ broke bread and shared it in remembrance (Interestingly catholic priests hand out whole wafers to their communicates - no breaking necessary) and also shared in the fruit of the vine, surely this would be the the go to source for such a belief? Yet even there it is clear he is referencing the body and blood that is spent for many on the Cross, there is no eating of his flesh or drinking his blood as he is right there with them, not to mention such doctrine would fly in the face levitical law (Lev 17:4) making him no longer sinless and no longer a sufficient sacrifice. And before you argue that it was the new covenant like many have before, let me ask you when did the new covenant take place? It was after his death and resurrection which had not occurred at this time.

The actual event of the last supper is of course used for the claim of transubstantiation, this is the first Mass, this was the institution of the Eucharist. My apologies if I never brought up the Last Supper as I assumed you already knew of the Last Supper. I brought up the John 6 discourse to give you a background of where the belief that the Eucharist is the body and blood of our Lord. The John 6(“Eat My flesh, Drink my blood”) discourse happened at the Jewish Passover, one year later the Last supper happened at the same time at Passover. Jesus is clearly teaching His disciples about what is now called the Eucharist which led to the climax at the Last Supper when He held up the bread and wine and said to his disciples “Take all of you and eat from it, for this IS my body”, The apostles clearly understood what He was saying.

Such a doctrine does not “Fly in the Face” of Levitical Law(Lev 17:4):

Firstly, any divine command that comes later modifies divine commands that came earlier. When Jesus declared all foods clean (Mk 7:19), his command superseded the earlier command that certain foods be regarded as unclean (Lv 11:1-8). If Jesus today commands us to drink his blood, his command supersedes any prior command concerning drinking blood.

Second, the command against drinking blood, like all of the Old Testament dietary regulations, has passed away, for “These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink” (Col 2:17, 16).

Thirdly, the Old Testament is very specific about why one was not to eat blood: “The life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood” (Lv 17:14, cf. Dt 12:23). The Israelites could not eat animal blood because it contained the animal’s life, but there is one Person whose life you must have in you, “Christ who is your life” (Col 3:4).

Are we to say that Christ also has hinges and a door handle as per John chapter 10 or that he is a vine with leaves and roots as per John 14. Jesus regularly spoke metaphorically and in this case literally said His words were spirit (v63) Furthermore I had the experience of partaking in the Eucharist as a child does that not mean that I am now assured of eternal life? The passage above would suggest that anyone who partakes in such a thing is guaranteed eternal life, that being there is no need for christ crucified or perhaps that part is not counted literal in Catholicism?

Had Jesus been speaking in a metaphorical sense here then this would have been the perfect point to clarify His intentions like what He did many times in scripture like in Matthew 16:5-12 where Jesus’ listeners thought that he was speaking in a literal sense, and he had to correct them. In this passage, Christ was warning the disciples of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The disciples concluded that he was speaking of the bread they had forgotten to bring for their journey. In seeing their confusion, Jesus had to reiterate that he was not speaking literally of bread.

But Jesus never corrected their confusion in John 6. Look how Jesus answers the Jews’ objections in John 6:53–58: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. . . . For my flesh is food indeed, and my flesh is drink indeed.” These words would hardly quell the Jew’s fear that Jesus spoke literally.

Following this, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”(6:60). At this point, we witness the only place in Scripture where anyone leaves Jesus for a doctrinal reason. Had Jesus been speaking metaphorically, what would have been so hard for the disciples to accept?

And regarding John chapter 10 like what you mentioned Jesus says, “I am the door.” Some say that this is the sense in which Jesus’ words in John 6 should be taken. However, no one understood Jesus to be speaking literally when he said that he was a door. The narrative does not continue, “And his disciples murmured about this, saying, ‘How can he be a door? Where are his hinges? We do not see a doorknob.’ Jesus answered them, ‘Amen, Amen, I say to you, I am a door, and my chest is real wood, and my hips are real hinges.’” This is absurd, but it illustrates how shocking Jesus’ words were when he said that his flesh was real food and his blood real drink.

Again there are seven "I Am" statements in John, are we to take them all literally?

As mentioned above it would seem that you have missed a critical part of Christ's teaching in this passage where he says it's the spirit that gives life and that words he has spoken are spirit and life, he is clearly speaking in spiritual terms lest He would have said my words are literal.

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life". (John 6:63)

I missed John 6:63 because I know this is a Protestant favourite used to try and disprove the Eucharist being the real flesh and blood of Christ, so I left it for you to mention

The fundamental misunderstanding here springs from the implication that the word spirit is symbolic. Never in Scripture is this the case. We are told that God is spirit and that the devil is spirit, but no one would conclude from this that they are merely symbolic beings. What Jesus is driving at is that the carnal understanding of fallen human flesh is incapable of understanding spiritual realities—such as the Eucharist.

If one concludes from the above verses that Jesus was speaking metaphorically of his flesh and blood, a major difficulty arises. The Bible teaches that blood is essentially the seat of life within living things, and thus it is sacred. Every time the Bible speaks of symbolically eating another’s flesh and drinking their blood, this is the idiomatic phrase that meant to persecute, betray, and murder (see Micah 3:3; Psalm 27:2; Isaiah 9:20, 49:26). Now read John 6 in light of those that understood Jesus to speak symbolically. “I solemnly assure you that unless you persecute and betray me, you have no life within you. He who does violence to me has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” This is senseless, but it is what his words would have meant if they were symbolic.

Furthermore what do you do with passages such as this which speaks of the sacrifice of Christ once for all? There is no room in scripture for the continual sacrifice of Christ, the very thing the Catholic Church teaches is what Christ came to abolish, no more need for preists to stand between man and God offering sacrifices, as our Lord said on the Cross "It is finished", the atonement for man was complete. Man does not need priests to interced for them to the Father, Christ himself is our intercessor.

25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. 26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. (Hebrews 7:25-27)

We do not believe that in the Mass we are re-crucifying or re-sacrificing Jesus on the cross. It’s not that Jesus is dying again. That is not what we mean when we say that the Mass is the sacrifice of Christ. Christ’s sacrifice is eternal, and since God is not limited by time, it is therefore that one sacrifice which we can draw from at any time, it’s a re-presentation of that one sacrifice. Let’s go back one verse from the Hebrews passage you quoted to Hebrews 7:24, We’re told that Jesus holds his priesthood permanently, and he’s exercising that permanent priesthood “in the sanctuary and the true tent, which is set up not by man but by the Lord.” That’s Hebrews 8:2. And what is he doing there? He’s “always living to make intercession” for us (Hebrews 7:25), so that all of us who draw near to him, we can be saved.

Now here’s the key: when you jump to 8:3, here’s what the author of Hebrews says—so this is coming after the author of Hebrews is saying that Jesus is our high priest who is exercising his priestly ministry forever, interceding for us in the heavenly sanctuary. Verse 3, he writes: “For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices, hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.” Now notice that the author of Hebrews is saying Jesus our high priest, as high priest in the heavenly sanctuary, must have a gift to offer in his heavenly priestly ministry.

Now which offering could that possibly be? It can’t be some distinct offering that he’s offering to his Father in this heavenly priestly ministry, because that would imply that his sacrifice on the cross was insufficient, which is absurd given revelation. So, what is it that he’s offering? What is the gift? What is the offering that he’s making present to the Father? It is his One sacrifice on the cross. But notice, that He’s making it present to the Father in the heavenly sanctuary in a different manner—in an unbloody manner. And we as Catholics are saying the Mass is simply that reality of Jesus making his one sacrifice present to the Father in an unbloody manner; that reality becomes present on the altar every time we go to Mass, and that’s the reality. You keep arguing “Context” “Context” “Context”, well I’ve just given you 100% context.

Again it would seem you've missed vital parts of Ignatius' letter to Smyrnaeans, the letter itself was addressing those who denied jesus came in the flesh, as in his incarnation:

"For he suffered all these things for our sakes, in order that we might be saved; and he truly suffered just as he truly raised himself— not, as certain unbelievers say, that he suffered in appearance only (it is they who exist in appearance only!). (Ch 2)

"For what good does it do me if someone praises me but blasphemes my Lord by not confessing that he was clothed in the flesh? (Ch 5)

Ignatius point when read in context was the dismissal of communion because they denied his coming in the flesh.

Furthermore again notice past tense Ignatius uses whilst talking of the Eucharist: "flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again”

There is no room here for ongoing feasting on Christ's flesh for the atonement of sins as he clearly indicates.

No, you have got this totally wrong and totally mis-representing what St Ignatius is saying.

St Ignatius is refuting Docetism which was a Christian heresy that affirmed that Christ did not have a real or natural body during His life on earth. Ignatius speaks of Christ having flesh, But he also points out this flesh of Christ is also denied by heretics to be the Eucharist. Two things, 1. Denying Jesus didn’t come in the flesh and 2. Denying the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ…But nice try buddy.

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes”. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 6

Here Ignatius equates the Eucharist to the same flesh of Christ that suffered for our sake on the cross. Jesus also uses this literal comparison when he explained, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (John 6:51).

Note that Tertullian at a similar time addressed the same false teaching having no issue alluding to the Eucharist as figurative:

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there was first an actual body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure,” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 4, Chapter 40).

Tertullian was not considered a church father in early Christianity. Tertullian died a Montanist Heretic. Tertullian taught heresy on many basic Christian beliefs. I’m not sure why you would use a Heretic like Tertullian to justify your beliefs. A Heretic loses credibility. But that doesn’t really matter for our purpose here, because he clearly did believe in the Real Presence anyway.

When Tertullian uses the term “figurative” he does not mean to deny the real presence. Tertullian is emphasizing the fact that the Lord’s body and blood are communicated under the “appearances,” “signs,” or “symbols” of bread and wine. “Figure” is another synonym for “sign.” Even today the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the terms “sign” and “symbol” to describe the Eucharist in paragraphs 1148 and 1412.

With Tertullian, all we have to do is go on reading in the very document quoted above by you to get a sense of how he is using the term “figure,” and it is entirely Catholic. Notice what he goes on to say:

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body…”

Tertullian’s point here is that Marcion’s “theory of a phantom body” fits with Christ “pretending the bread was His body,” because Marcion denied Jesus had a body in the first place. But the Christian believes Christ “made it His own body, by saying, This is my body.” The transformation does not take away the symbolic value of bread and wine, it confirms it.

Tertullian makes clear in multiple places that he believed that Jesus communicated his true body and blood under the “figures” or appearances of bread and wine:

• On the Resurrection of the Flesh (ca. AD 200), chapter 8.
• On Prayer, Of Stations (Fasting), chapter 19.
• On Modesty, chapter 9.

Origen did make it clear in the below statement that the Eucharist a symbol of gratitude.

“We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Origen, Against Celsus, 8.57).

This is a very poor understanding of the English language on your behalf. Origen states “we have a symbol of gratitude”. It’s a Symbol of our “Thank You” to God, Origen doesn’t say it’s ONLY a symbol of the body/flesh of Christ, but says it’s a symbol of gratitude. Protestants always uses the Either/OR approach, why not Both/And?

The Catholic Church has always understood the Eucharist both to employ “figures” or “symbols” AND to be God’s instrument to communicate the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, in his substantial reality, under the accidents or appearances of bread and wine to the people of God for their spiritual sustenance. The answer is both/and not either/Or.

Your quote of Origen doesn’t prove anything

 

[Hacky McAxe]

A couple of responses to your earlier thoughts, a lot of the arguments used are pretty common among Catholics (who actually have a solid opinion on the matter), and the old early church fathers claim is very easily refuted if you were to take some time and read some of the early works.

Let's take a look at the bible to see if the Eucharist is a mockery of Christ's finished work on the Cross.


“‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (John 6:51–52).

Did jesus not give His flesh on the Cross once and for all as a sacrifice for the sins of those who would belive? Secondly notice the future tense that is used when speaking of his atonement ('and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’, it is just that a future event- something that had not happened yet, He is speaking of His atonement for sin on the Cross, which also speaks to your later argument that these followers rejected the Eucharist, how could they reject the lords table if no sacrificial event had happened yet?

My question to you is why not use the actual event of the last supper as support for the claim of transubstantiation? This is the very event that Christ broke bread and shared it in remembrance (Interestingly catholic priests hand out whole wafers to their communicates - no breaking necessary) and also shared in the fruit of the vine, surely this would be the the go to source for such a belief? Yet even there it is clear he is referencing the body and blood that is spent for many on the Cross, there is no eating of his flesh or drinking his blood as he is right there with them, not to mention such doctrine would fly in the face levitical law (Lev 17:4) making him no longer sinless and no longer a sufficient sacrifice. And before you argue that it was the new covenant like many have before, let me ask you when did the new covenant take place? It was after his death and resurrection which had not occurred at this time.

Jesus again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56).

Are we to say that Christ also has hinges and a door handle as per John chapter 10 or that he is a vine with leaves and roots as per John 14. Jesus regularly spoke metaphorically and in this case literally said His words were spirit (v63) Furthermore I had the experience of partaking in the Eucharist as a child does that not mean that I am now assured of eternal life? The passage above would suggest that anyone who partakes in such a thing is guaranteed eternal life, that being there is no need for christ crucified or perhaps that part is not counted literal in Catholicism?


Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct “misunderstandings,” for there were none.


Again there are seven "I Am" statements in John, are we to take them all literally?

As mentioned above it would seem that you have missed a critical part of Christ's teaching in this passage where he says it's the spirit that gives life and that words he has spoken are spirit and life, he is clearly speaking in spiritual terms lest He would have said my words are literal.

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life". (John 6:63)


Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically as originally thought but literally, that's why in the following verses his disciples could not listen to it anymore and walked away:


In John 6:60 we read: “Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’” (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) “After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66).

Again as I alluded to earlier how could there be rejection of the Eucharist when this event happened before the the event that was the last supper (the Eucharist)? At this time Christ had not given Himself as a sacrifice on the Cross, I noticed you like many Catholics use these verses as support for transubstantiation, but I ask you how could anyone take part in the lords supper and furthermore reject it if Christ at this time had not literally given the sacrifice of His body on the Cross? Jesus' point here was clearly an analogy, just as eating and drinking are necessary for physical life, so also is belief in his sacrificial death on the cross necessary for eternal life. The eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood symbolises the essential need for accepting Jesus’ work on the cross.


Furthermore what do you do with passages such as this which speaks of the sacrifice of Christ once for all? There is no room in scripture for the continual sacrifice of Christ, the very thing the Catholic Church teaches is what Christ came to abolish, no more need for preists to stand between man and God offering sacrifices, as our Lord said on the Cross "It is finished", the atonement for man was complete. Man does not need priests to interced for them to the Father, Christ himself is our intercessor.

25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. 26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. (Hebrews 7:25-27)

Then there is this scripture, notice Christ sits down at the right hand of God waiting - not constantly dividing up parts of his body for the sanctification of saints, to the contrary the author looks poorly on the the former practice of priests constantly offering the same sacrifices which can never take away sins.

9 then He said, "BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL." He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13 waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. (Hebrews 10:9-14)




This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.


But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have “to eat my flesh and drink my blood.”

Again Jesus said what he spoke was spirit and life, yes, spiritual and essential, the crowds did not leave him because the doctrine of the lords table but rather because he spoke what was perceived to be blasphemy, you said it yourself, He called himself the bread that came down from heaven. He made himself level with God. This was sacrilege, absolutely detestable to his hearers as stated in verse 41 where ot says "Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, "I am the bread that came down out of heaven."


The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor.

The best words for a metaphor are those that paint the most appropriate picture, to say that any word can't be used as a metaphor is "clutching at straws". To the contrary when was the last time you gnawed at that soft wafer you are given at communion?


Let's see what St Paul says in the bible:

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16).

Again context is key here, firstly this passage is in reference to those who would eat the food sacrificed to idols and as a result the above verse is limited to the refutation of such error. Further more again notice the word 'in the' (I say word as the Greek word here is tou meaning in the) it is not a participation on the body but rather in it. We are not gnawing on it but rather participating in the communion of which we are to take in remembrance of Him and Him crucified.



St Paul goes on to say in the bible:

“Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29).


“To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? St Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

Again context is needed, this was a revoke to those who were gluttonous at the lords table feasting on the bread and getting drunk on the wine, these were people who had no respect for Christ when coming together as the church should in delight of Christs finished work on the cross.

Remember in verse 26 Paul says as often as you do this you proclaim the lords death - communion is just that a declaration and a celebration of Christ's finished work, therefore is it not right to say that anyone who takes communion in an unworthy manner is worthy of judgment? One who does take serious the propitiation for our sins surely will be judged against that which was spilled at Calvary?

Also in vs 24 and 25 of the passege your quoting we see the reoccurring phrase 'do this in remembrance of me', why would Christ ask us to take the bread and the wine in remembrance of Him and all He achieved at the initiation of the new covenant if he was constantly shedding his body and blood as a sacrifice, why would you be called to remember something that is currently happening?


Now let's look at what the early Christians believed about the Eucharist:


* St Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).

Again it would seem you've missed vital parts of Ignatius' letter to Smyrnaeans, the letter itself was addressing those who denied jesus came in the flesh, as in his incarnation:

"For he suffered all these things for our sakes, in order that we might be saved; and he truly suffered just as he truly raised himself— not, as certain unbelievers say, that he suffered in appearance only (it is they who exist in appearance only!). (Ch 2)

"For what good does it do me if someone praises me but blasphemes my Lord by not confessing that he was clothed in the flesh? (Ch 5)

Ignatius point when read in context was the dismissal of communion because they denied his coming in the flesh.

Furthermore again notice past tense Ignatius uses whilst talking of the Eucharist: "flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again”

There is no room here for ongoing feasting on Christ's flesh for the atonement of sins as he clearly indicates.

Note that Tertullian at a similar time addressed the same false teaching having no issue alluding to the Eucharist as figurative:

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there was first an actual body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure,” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 4, Chapter 40).



* Forty years later, St Justin Martyr, wrote, “Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66:1–20).


Again context and looking at Justin's whole known works is imperative here, Justin addressed on multiple occasions the fallacy of eating human flesh labelling it "fabulous and shameful deeds,” of which Christians are falsely accused, (First Apology, Chapter 26), he and the wider Christian community at the time fought hard to dismiss such abhorrent notions.

He also spoke of the Eucharist (literally translated "thanksgiving" in Justins works) as something to be taken in remembrance of his body and as a commemoration of his blood:

“the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood"(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).



* Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. “You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish” (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).


Origen did make it clear in the below statement that the Eucharist a symbol of gratitude.

“We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Origen, Against Celsus, 8.57).


The early church took John 6 literally, it was Unanimous. There is no record from the early centuries in which the literal interpretation is opposed. For the first 1500 years of Christianity ALL Christians believed the Eucharist to be the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, until the protestant reformation in 1517AD it then began to change.

The early church started with the baptism of the the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, thus the early church started at Pentecost. The earliest of church fathers are those of the new testament of whom did not teach transubstantiation, infact they taught that Christ died once for all (Rom 6:23, Heb 9:26,28, 10:10, 1Pet 3:18) raised from the dead, never to die again, there is no room in the scriptures for a jesus that is continually dying.

As of extrabiblical sources where the words of which are not inspired there are many:

The Didache, written in the late-first or early-second century, referred to the elements of the Lord’s table as “spiritual food and drink” (The Didache, 9).

Clement of Alexandria explained that, “The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2).

Then you have the following of the early church who also wrote of the spiritual context of the Eucharist that I'm happy to share should you require their opinions.

Cyprian (200–258), Hippolytus (180– 230), Eusebius of Caesarea (263–340) Athanasius (296–373), Augustine (354–430),


So I ask myself the question: I have the bible which is clear on the real presence of Christ in communion, I also have access to what the very early Christians believed about the Eucharist in the 1st, 2nd & 3rd centuries.

There is plenty there to refute your stance on what the early church fathers taught.

Remembering that the writings of man can not compare to scripture and that scripture alone should be our source of the knowledge and will of God.

The actual event of the last supper is of course used for the claim of transubstantiation, this is the first Mass, this was the institution of the Eucharist. My apologies if I never brought up the Last Supper as I assumed you already knew of the Last Supper. I brought up the John 6 discourse to give you a background of where the belief that the Eucharist is the body and blood of our Lord. The John 6(“Eat My flesh, Drink my blood”) discourse happened at the Jewish Passover, one year later the Last supper happened at the same time at Passover. Jesus is clearly teaching His disciples about what is now called the Eucharist which led to the climax at the Last Supper when He held up the bread and wine and said to his disciples “Take all of you and eat from it, for this IS my body”, The apostles clearly understood what He was saying.

Such a doctrine does not “Fly in the Face” of Levitical Law(Lev 17:4):

Firstly, any divine command that comes later modifies divine commands that came earlier. When Jesus declared all foods clean (Mk 7:19), his command superseded the earlier command that certain foods be regarded as unclean (Lv 11:1-8). If Jesus today commands us to drink his blood, his command supersedes any prior command concerning drinking blood.

Second, the command against drinking blood, like all of the Old Testament dietary regulations, has passed away, for “These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink” (Col 2:17, 16).

Thirdly, the Old Testament is very specific about why one was not to eat blood: “The life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood” (Lv 17:14, cf. Dt 12:23). The Israelites could not eat animal blood because it contained the animal’s life, but there is one Person whose life you must have in you, “Christ who is your life” (Col 3:4).



Had Jesus been speaking in a metaphorical sense here then this would have been the perfect point to clarify His intentions like what He did many times in scripture like in Matthew 16:5-12 where Jesus’ listeners thought that he was speaking in a literal sense, and he had to correct them. In this passage, Christ was warning the disciples of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The disciples concluded that he was speaking of the bread they had forgotten to bring for their journey. In seeing their confusion, Jesus had to reiterate that he was not speaking literally of bread.

But Jesus never corrected their confusion in John 6. Look how Jesus answers the Jews’ objections in John 6:53–58: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. . . . For my flesh is food indeed, and my flesh is drink indeed.” These words would hardly quell the Jew’s fear that Jesus spoke literally.

Following this, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”(6:60). At this point, we witness the only place in Scripture where anyone leaves Jesus for a doctrinal reason. Had Jesus been speaking metaphorically, what would have been so hard for the disciples to accept?

And regarding John chapter 10 like what you mentioned Jesus says, “I am the door.” Some say that this is the sense in which Jesus’ words in John 6 should be taken. However, no one understood Jesus to be speaking literally when he said that he was a door. The narrative does not continue, “And his disciples murmured about this, saying, ‘How can he be a door? Where are his hinges? We do not see a doorknob.’ Jesus answered them, ‘Amen, Amen, I say to you, I am a door, and my chest is real wood, and my hips are real hinges.’” This is absurd, but it illustrates how shocking Jesus’ words were when he said that his flesh was real food and his blood real drink.



I missed John 6:63 because I know this is a Protestant favourite used to try and disprove the Eucharist being the real flesh and blood of Christ, so I left it for you to mention

The fundamental misunderstanding here springs from the implication that the word spirit is symbolic. Never in Scripture is this the case. We are told that God is spirit and that the devil is spirit, but no one would conclude from this that they are merely symbolic beings. What Jesus is driving at is that the carnal understanding of fallen human flesh is incapable of understanding spiritual realities—such as the Eucharist.

If one concludes from the above verses that Jesus was speaking metaphorically of his flesh and blood, a major difficulty arises. The Bible teaches that blood is essentially the seat of life within living things, and thus it is sacred. Every time the Bible speaks of symbolically eating another’s flesh and drinking their blood, this is the idiomatic phrase that meant to persecute, betray, and murder (see Micah 3:3; Psalm 27:2; Isaiah 9:20, 49:26). Now read John 6 in light of those that understood Jesus to speak symbolically. “I solemnly assure you that unless you persecute and betray me, you have no life within you. He who does violence to me has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” This is senseless, but it is what his words would have meant if they were symbolic.



We do not believe that in the Mass we are re-crucifying or re-sacrificing Jesus on the cross. It’s not that Jesus is dying again. That is not what we mean when we say that the Mass is the sacrifice of Christ. Christ’s sacrifice is eternal, and since God is not limited by time, it is therefore that one sacrifice which we can draw from at any time, it’s a re-presentation of that one sacrifice. Let’s go back one verse from the Hebrews passage you quoted to Hebrews 7:24, We’re told that Jesus holds his priesthood permanently, and he’s exercising that permanent priesthood “in the sanctuary and the true tent, which is set up not by man but by the Lord.” That’s Hebrews 8:2. And what is he doing there? He’s “always living to make intercession” for us (Hebrews 7:25), so that all of us who draw near to him, we can be saved.

Now here’s the key: when you jump to 8:3, here’s what the author of Hebrews says—so this is coming after the author of Hebrews is saying that Jesus is our high priest who is exercising his priestly ministry forever, interceding for us in the heavenly sanctuary. Verse 3, he writes: “For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices, hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.” Now notice that the author of Hebrews is saying Jesus our high priest, as high priest in the heavenly sanctuary, must have a gift to offer in his heavenly priestly ministry.

Now which offering could that possibly be? It can’t be some distinct offering that he’s offering to his Father in this heavenly priestly ministry, because that would imply that his sacrifice on the cross was insufficient, which is absurd given revelation. So, what is it that he’s offering? What is the gift? What is the offering that he’s making present to the Father? It is his One sacrifice on the cross. But notice, that He’s making it present to the Father in the heavenly sanctuary in a different manner—in an unbloody manner. And we as Catholics are saying the Mass is simply that reality of Jesus making his one sacrifice present to the Father in an unbloody manner; that reality becomes present on the altar every time we go to Mass, and that’s the reality. You keep arguing “Context” “Context” “Context”, well I’ve just given you 100% context.



No, you have got this totally wrong and totally mis-representing what St Ignatius is saying.

St Ignatius is refuting Docetism which was a Christian heresy that affirmed that Christ did not have a real or natural body during His life on earth. Ignatius speaks of Christ having flesh, But he also points out this flesh of Christ is also denied by heretics to be the Eucharist. Two things, 1. Denying Jesus didn’t come in the flesh and 2. Denying the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ…But nice try buddy.

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes”. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 6

Here Ignatius equates the Eucharist to the same flesh of Christ that suffered for our sake on the cross. Jesus also uses this literal comparison when he explained, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (John 6:51).



Tertullian was not considered a church father in early Christianity. Tertullian died a Montanist Heretic. Tertullian taught heresy on many basic Christian beliefs. I’m not sure why you would use a Heretic like Tertullian to justify your beliefs. A Heretic loses credibility. But that doesn’t really matter for our purpose here, because he clearly did believe in the Real Presence anyway.

When Tertullian uses the term “figurative” he does not mean to deny the real presence. Tertullian is emphasizing the fact that the Lord’s body and blood are communicated under the “appearances,” “signs,” or “symbols” of bread and wine. “Figure” is another synonym for “sign.” Even today the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the terms “sign” and “symbol” to describe the Eucharist in paragraphs 1148 and 1412.

With Tertullian, all we have to do is go on reading in the very document quoted above by you to get a sense of how he is using the term “figure,” and it is entirely Catholic. Notice what he goes on to say:

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body…”

Tertullian’s point here is that Marcion’s “theory of a phantom body” fits with Christ “pretending the bread was His body,” because Marcion denied Jesus had a body in the first place. But the Christian believes Christ “made it His own body, by saying, This is my body.” The transformation does not take away the symbolic value of bread and wine, it confirms it.

Tertullian makes clear in multiple places that he believed that Jesus communicated his true body and blood under the “figures” or appearances of bread and wine:

• On the Resurrection of the Flesh (ca. AD 200), chapter 8.
• On Prayer, Of Stations (Fasting), chapter 19.
• On Modesty, chapter 9.

This is a very poor understanding of the English language on your behalf. Origen states “we have a symbol of gratitude”. It’s a Symbol of our “Thank You” to God, Origen doesn’t say it’s ONLY a symbol of the body/flesh of Christ, but says it’s a symbol of gratitude. Protestants always uses the Either/OR approach, why not Both/And?

The Catholic Church has always understood the Eucharist both to employ “figures” or “symbols” AND to be God’s instrument to communicate the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, in his substantial reality, under the accidents or appearances of bread and wine to the people of God for their spiritual sustenance. The answer is both/and not either/Or.

Your quote of Origen doesn’t prove anything

Finally an actual religious discussion in the religious thread. Good work, lads.

 

[Kelpie03]

Yeah I get you, I can't answer on their behalf but if you are so sure in your faith then you would welcome death and not be scared of it.

I'm not suicidal or anything but can't wait to go home. Been close many times but I'm still stuck here.

I get that you have been delt a bad hand in having to get a new ticker, since you are not an old man like me. I'd be sure that the donor would want you to keep going as long as possible thus he/ she still has something living be it in another person YOU, besides the TK needs your imput more than anything.
So please don't say things like that my friend, God wants us to enjoy life as long as possible. In 2017 I was diagonised with a very agressive cancer, the pros cut out so much of me that its not funny, after the op the Professor saw me and shook his head and my only hope was to put me through the cookers which I did for a total of 3 months. I just wanted to live so that I could continue working for the LM ie visiting the sick the old and the poor. Also I was a bit "selfishly" hoping to see us winning another comp before I departed, which now appears to be less likely by the day
The pros say that I'm now clear, but I'm carrying a lot of attachments to help me get by.

 

[dogwhisperer]

Yeah I get you, I can't answer on their behalf but if you are so sure in your faith then you would welcome death and not be scared of it.

I'm not suicidal or anything but can't wait to go home. Been close many times but I'm still stuck here.

From a Christian perspective there is absolutely nothing wrong with yearning for heaven. There were a lot of saints in the past who could not wait to die to attain eternal life and be with the Lord.

 

[Kelpie03]

I shouldn't speak about interpretations too much though as my interpretation is hated by almost all Christians. My belief is that if the Abrahamic God exists, he likely chose a hands off approach and stopped intervening in human lives long ago. And he likely isn't this all loving, omnipotent being that cares about humans.

But that all comes down to my human interpretations of a God. For example, I look at an apparently all loving creator that slaughters millions because he isn't happy, an all powerful being that deliberately created evil and punished people for what he made them do. These kind of things I find hard to comprehend. But human trying to comprehend a being beyond our understanding is never going to end well.

I guess that you will never understand the difference between a true Christian and an Athiests.
Firstly we have the natural world which shows us all the wonders of it, as well as all the jucey stuff like wealth, greed and all its by products such as indulging in alchol, drugs uncontroled sex anywhere any time and in some cases with anyone or anything.
Then we have (probably very few these days), those who have found true spirituality ie. the love of God and all mankind, which means sacrificers such as giving helping others ie. the poor the sick the helpless etc, as well as paying homage to God.
Mind you their are many who you can call the (IN BETWEENS), however, I believe that most have had some type of religious exposure.
I guess that it is hard for an athiests to see that their is a GOOD and a BAD spirit active in our world, which are very opposite to each other.
I guesss also it hard for an Athiests to accept the possibility (perhaps only a very remote one) of Heaven, sometime its even hard for me and many true Christians, but even having doubts about Heaven their is something that draws us to Christ, hence we try to live his teachings.

 

[The DoggFather]

I get that you have been delt a bad hand in having to get a new ticker, since you are not an old man like me. I'd be sure that the donor would want you to keep going as long as possible thus he/ she still has something living be it in another person YOU, besides the TK needs your imput more than anything.
So please don't say things like that my friend, God wants us to enjoy life as long as possible. In 2017 I was diagonised with a very agressive cancer, the pros cut out so much of me that its not funny, after the op the Professor saw me and shook his head and my only hope was to put me through the cookers which I did for a total of 3 months. I just wanted to live so that I could continue working for the LM ie visiting the sick the old and the poor. Also I was a bit "selfishly" hoping to see us winning another comp before I departed, which now appears to be less likely by the day
The pros say that I'm now clear, but I'm carrying a lot of attachments to help me get by.

You took it the wrong way bro, I don't regret that I'm alive, I just have zero fear of dying.

Actually me getting sick was a good thing, I used to do a standard 80-90 hour week at work before I got sick, I got to see and be there for every step of my childrens lives so far, haven't missed a thing. What makes it better is science kept telling my I wouldn't be able to have any kids with the heavy duty meds I was on. Plus they gave me 5 days to live, I lasted 5 years to get the heart.

I don't answer to man or science, I answer to my Heavenly Father.

 

[The DoggFather]

From a Christian perspective there is absolutely nothing wrong with yearning for heaven. There were a lot of saints in the past who could not wait to die to attain eternal life and be with the Lord.

I just hate this putrid hell hole and it's only getting worse.

 

[Wahesh]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1664357305339502595

This man deserves a standing ovation. The idiot politician who was telling him to stop speaking couldn't even answer his question. He simply told him to stop speaking. What a dickhead.