Is the "Real Presence" [catholic Holy Communion" Really REAL?

[Major1]

Wow it wasn't a doctrine of the church until the 13th century?

Seeing that many claim salvation is seen in eating the waffer God, what did the church do prior to this doctrine?

Argue!

 

[Truth7t7]

Argue!

Lol

 

[Albion]

Wow it wasn't a doctrine of the church until the 13th century?

Not Transubstantiation, no. But Real Presence dates back to the 1st century.

 

[Albion]

I have given several rundowns of John 6 that are every bit as substantial for as against real presence from John 6 and it's only been recently that the RCC have been using it to counter that distinction. But here's another aspect too...

His work as redeemer

John 6:35
Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.​

His flesh is life. As the lamb of God He feeds and redeems, before the fall as the tree of life he was just for feeding on. Then in dying for us He gave His flesh so that we could have life. Blood is also necessary for redemption. Separating the flesh and blood John 6:54 clearly means His death.

John 6:47
Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.
John 1:12
Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—​

John 6:56 is the resurrected life of those who believe in Him.
By eating (gaining our edification from ) we are taking Him in as nourishment for the new creation for the new way of life.

John 14:19-20
Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.​

John 6:62 involves His ascension which followed redemption as proof His work had been completed.

Hebrews 1:3b
... After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.​

Wherefore He is the life-giving spirit John 6:63 who gives life and speaks in spirit and life.

1 Corinthians 15:45
So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.​

As the life-giving spirit He is the life supply. Receiving (believing) Him as the crucified and resurrected savior, the lifegiving Spirit comes into us to impart eternal life. We receive (believe) the Lord Jesus but we get the Holy Spirit who gives us life.

Communion in the way of breaking of bread was the way in which the earliest church recognized Jesus, as exemplified by the couple of disciples at Emmuas. Communion is recognition of Jesus Christ within the revealed Word of God, symbolically, in spirit and truth.

The problem here is that, if we assume that Christ was not making an analogy in John 6, but instead was referring to the sacrament, we have somehow to make sense of the fact that he was speaking these words before he instituted the Lords Supper.

 

[Truth7t7]

My dear friend. I know from our past conversations that you are a well entrenched RCC member.

Good for you. You have learned their doctrine at the expense of everything else and you represent the RCC well, if not incorrectly.

Having said that, I am sure that you are aware
The catholic church teaches that there are seven sacraments, according to YOUR catechism. They go so far as to say that these sacraments are necessary for salvation:

“There are seven sacraments in the Church: Baptism, Confirmation or Chrismation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony.” Pg. 289, #1113

“The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.” Pg. 292, #1129.

How then can you as a catholic say that obeying the sacraments assures salvation? The Bible says:

~Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

If the sacraments are to be obeyed, and if the sacraments are of God, then they would be found in the Bible. They are not found there but instead, they are recorded in the traditions of men, the catholic church’s sacred tradition and magisterium – attempting to reach God through religion. But God cannot be reached in this manner. There is nothing we can do in this flesh that will ever please God. We can only reach God through salvation in Jesus Christ and after doing so, we receive the Holy Spirit of God and can now say that we can truly worship God with the same obedience that Abel worshipped God with his sacrifice – because we are covered by the Perfect Sacrifice, Jesus Christ and His blood!
The Sacraments Do Not Save

You forget God hates Idolatry, what you gonna do when your worshipped idol breaks, a must see!

The Roman Catholic doctrine of Pennance?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

The problem here is that, if we assume that Christ was not making an analogy in John 6, but instead was referring to the sacrament, we have somehow to make sense of the fact that he was speaking these words before he instituted the Lords Supper.

You don't think He would use a preparative form of communicating His teachings? That's quite a niave supposition imho.

 

[Albion]

It's quite a stretch to think that the Eucharist was his topic in this case in which he spoke at length about his point but never once indicated that the Holy Meal was soon to be made available to the listeners. Not even after they showed a lot of confusion and incredulity over what he could possibly be meaning by his words there.

 

[prodromos]

The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and The Word of God by James McCarthy

Understanding Four Views on the Lord's Supper edited by John H. Armstrong

Dallas Theological Seminary.....
Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) - Teach Truth. Love Well.

Liberty University Online - Accredited Bible Universities
Ad · www.liberty.edu/Online/Christian
Moody Theological Seminary - Moody Bible Institute
https://www.moody.edu/moody-theological-seminary-chicago

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1958, p. 652.

None of these are quoting early Church Fathers that I can see.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

None of these are quoting early Church Fathers that I can see.

Over ruled by tradition.

 

[Major1]

None of these are quoting early Church Fathers that I can see.

That is a sad commentary my friend.

YOU actually went to the teaching sites of Dallas Theological Seminary,
Liberty University, Mooody Bible Ins

You don't think He would use a preparative form of communicating His teachings? That's quite a niave supposition imho.

I would also say that the actual Communion elements and instructions were not given until about 1 year later than John 6.

 

[Major1]

The problem here is that, if we assume that Christ was not making an analogy in John 6, but instead was referring to the sacrament, we have somehow to make sense of the fact that he was speaking these words before he instituted the Lords Supper.

Correct. How many times now have I said that John 6 was about a YEAR before Jesus instituted the elements of the Communion service

 

[prodromos]

That is a sad commentary my friend.

Why?

YOU actually went to the teaching sites of Dallas Theological Seminary,
Liberty University, Mooody Bible Ins

Yes I did.
Perhaps you could help by giving specific links to locations within the sites instead of just the general links. As I have stated before, I work full time and don't have the luxury of hours of free time to dig through your general references.

 

[prodromos]

Correct. How many times now have I said that John 6 was about a YEAR before Jesus instituted the elements of the Communion service

It makes no difference. He was telling them the "what" and then later showing them the "how".

 

[Albion]

It makes no difference. He was telling them the "what" and then later showing them the "how".

Hardly. For John 6 to be about the Eucharist, Jesus would have to be lecturing them on something he knew had no meaning to them and could not have any meaning to them (at the time)--and then doubling down on it when they showed no recognition of what he was talking about.

 

[Major1]

It makes no difference. He was telling them the "what" and then later showing them the "how".

Opinions are wonderful things. I note yours.
I do not agree with it, but I note it.

Personally I think it means everything and that is not only my opinion but the Scriptures confirm that it was 1 year later.

But of course, feel free to believe what you wish.

 

[Major1]

Why?

Yes I did.
Perhaps you could help by giving specific links to locations within the sites instead of just the general links. As I have stated before, I work full time and don't have the luxury of hours of free time to dig through your general references.

Those were in fact are specific links to the Protestant Seminaries where the RCC doctrine of Transubstaciation is well known for being rejected as what it is, a RCC teaching and not a Biblical one.

You see my friend, if I do it for you, all you are going to do is post something like........
"Well they are wrong and I do not accept that Bible teaching".

For heavens sake, you will not even accept the fact that Jesus gave the directions of the elements of Communion 1 year after John 6, why would I do all the work for you to reject something else.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

( IS "SPIRIT" 'real' or imaginary ? )

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Lev. 17:10-14............
“Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood—I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood. 'Any Israelite or any alien living among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth, because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, "You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off."

Seems rather self explanatory to me.

The whole point of the Gospel is that legalism does NOT save anyone; yet you seem to be hung up on the law and legalism. The Gospel recognizes that we can not keep the law, and absolves us from many of the obligations of the law. The 10 commandments remain, but the Mosaic dietary laws have all been repealed. Such is why you can eat things like "hot-dogs which are a mix of mechanically separated meat byproducts; one of which is blood. We, of European decent have been enjoying the nutritional benefits of Bluttwurst, Spekwurst, Black Pudding, Blood-sausage etc. (good stuff it is too).

Want to follow Jewish law, then follow all of it and be a Jew, and tell us how well you keep it, and how you lament and mourn your short comings.

Want to be a Christian?; rejoice in Christ and His Sacraments for the Sanctification and Justification that are ours despite the law.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Hardly. For John 6 to be about the Eucharist, Jesus would have to be lecturing them on something he knew had no meaning to them and could not have any meaning to them (at the time)--and then doubling down on it when they showed no recognition of what he was talking about.

Yet Jesus spoke of the destruction of the temple and it's raising up in three days.
Likewise, Mary did not quite understand the Angel, yet she pondered those things in her heart.
Zachariah did not understand the message about John the Baptist, and was struck dumb until his birth came to pass.

God does for-tell stuff; read the Old testament in light of the new: How could anyone understand what was written until it came to pass?

 

[prodromos]

Hardly. For John 6 to be about the Eucharist, Jesus would have to be lecturing them on something he knew had no meaning to them and could not have any meaning to them (at the time)--and then doubling down on it when they showed no recognition of what he was talking about.

Not unlike God telling Abraham to take his son Isaac and sacrifice him.