The Real Presence Debate Thread

Thekla · Sep 4, 2007

Fireinfolding said:
Hi Thelka, I dont know who the EFC is... that shouldnt surprise you by now, theres not too much I do know lol

I just noticed many times it speaks of wisdom of the world that theres an assumption that its outside the realm of scripture. Paul includes the scribes (who were more then familiar with the scriptures). The disciples would ask Jesus, "why do the scribes say this" or that"? God making foolish the wisdom of this world for the world in its wisdom knew not God. It included them. Ironically to those who quoted principles from the scriptures to Jesus (in asking Him questions) it was to them (who were most familiar with them) he made fools of. On one occasion sayng, "ye know not the scriptures or the power of God" and the like.

The tradition of the very elders (themselves) includng washing before the eating "bread". There was shewbread and manna, which shewbread was part of the tradition already. Why didnt Jesus say I am "that" bread you serve already? There was what was lawful and what was unlawful in relation to this bread already.

The physical bread (in their tradition) that they ate was in their eyes sacred having what is lawful in accord with it. What I have hard time understanding is, why would that (then) be extremely difficult for any one of disciples to believe (if that were the case) in its sacredness (as so treated) to doubt Jesus will make himself that very physical bread?

How is it that "food and drink" commendeth us not unto God yet at the same time it appears that it does?

Now I (personally) believe in His REAL presence because He IS and He certainly has the power to make His presence known. I do not question this reality. Though when He reveals His presence (to me) I have had no physical bread before me or anything which enters my mouth. I also have no problem believing He could do the very same if there is physical bread before us as well. He could do both very easily.

They were taking and eating physical bread before after the tradition of he elders long before the Last supper, what changed between the breads?

Peace

Fireinfolding

Hi, Fif --

please forgive me if I rush off mid-way (meeting tonight, but I'll be back), or if I misunderstand your questions -- just so you don't find me deliberately disrespectful ...

sorry for the ECF "letters" -- means "early Christian fathers" (elders and Saints who left writings, and those who did not but were written about because of their witness of Christ).

Many Christians who come to the boards here, and many I've met, do not believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. When others of us quote the early Christian writers, it is because the early Christians did believe it was truly His body and blood. The Apostles believed, but what is wonderful to me is that early Christians who were previously "wise in the eyes of the world" rejected that world for Christ. I think that for those who have trouble with this (the Eucharist being truly the body and blood of Christ), strengthens the fact of this belief -- for the educated unChristian, this belief (and belief in Christ) looked "stupid" (and dangerous) to the pagan society.

As for me, I think you are greatly blessed to experience His presence, and know it can happen (both ways) as He promised.

The only thing that changed between the breads of the OT/NT -- is Christ.

And Christ is our life, and greatly to be praised

Thekla · Sep 4, 2007

simonthezealot said:
Try responding to my question!!!

AGAIN, a simple question. Those who stayed and understood Him to be literall, why no BITE of flesh?

in Greek, Christ didn't say "bite", He said "gnaw"

CathNancy · Sep 4, 2007

Simon why don't you answer my question, what did Jesus mean when He said " does this shock you"?

Hap · Sep 4, 2007

In the 303 a Roman court in North Africa recorded these items that had been confiscated from a house-church:

2 golden chalices
6 silver chalices
1 silver bowl
6 silver dishes

Of course through my Catholic eyes I see these items being used for the Eucharist. These items do seem like a bit much for just a pot-luck dinner.

Thekla · Sep 4, 2007

Hap said:
In the 303 a Roman court in North Africa recorded these items that had been confiscated from a house-church:

2 golden chalices
6 silver chalices
1 silver bowl
6 silver dishes

Of course through my Catholic eyes I see these items being used for the Eucharist. These items do seem like a bit much for just a pot-luck dinner.

here is an inventory list from the first(?) Christian Church built by Constantine after his victory. (It is thought construction began within a month of victory)

[SIZE=-1]A silver paten weighing twenty pounds[/SIZE]./ [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Two silver scyphi weighing ten pounts./ A gold chalice weighing two pounds./ Five service chalices weighing two pounds./ Two silver amae each weighing eight pounds. A silver chrism/paten, inlaid with gold, weighing five pounds./ Ten crown lights each weighing eight pounds. Twenty bronze lights each weighing ten pounds. Twelve candlesticks each weighing thirty pounds.[/SIZE][/FONT]

simonthezealot · Sep 4, 2007

Hap said:
. But after reading some early Church Fathers....I do not claim to be anywhere close to your knowledge of church history.....and watching a program on TBN about how the Romans accused the early Christian of eating there God started to change the way I looked at John 6 and what Christ meant when he said "This is my body."

Hap,
The problem with using the ECF's as your basis of knowledge on this is that many many of them may have believed in real presence but certainly nothing close to transubstantiation much more like a lutheran/methodist with some even more spiritual like Calvin, I'd love to lay down a few of these writings for you if your interested...So in your reading if you ascertained it strictly through clips from newadvent (not saying you did) but if so their is a lot more light that can be shone...ALL in context!

BTW I find TBN more heretical at times than ewtn, and that says alot coming from a fundy like me

simonthezealot · Sep 4, 2007

Thekla said:
in Greek, Christ didn't say "bite", He said "gnaw"

Still same question, if they understood Him as literal, why not gnaw?

CathNancy said:
Simon why don't you answer my question, what did Jesus mean when He said " does this shock you"?

CONTEXT...CONTEXT...

Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe. Jn 6:61-64

Again I tell you it's a lesson on FAITH

Thekla · Sep 4, 2007

simonthezealot said:
Still same question, if they understood Him as literal, why not gnaw?

because in John 6:51 (midway through the verse) Christ states:

"And indeed the bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Its a tense thing

Hap · Sep 4, 2007

simonthezealot said:
Hap,
The problem with using the ECF's as your basis of knowledge on this is that many many of them may have believed in real presence but certainly nothing close to transubstantiation much more like a lutheran/methodist with some even more spiritual like Calvin, I'd love to lay down a few of these writings for you if your interested...

Absolutly

simonthezealot said:
So in your reading if you ascertained it strictly through clips from newadvent (not saying you did) but if so their is a lot more light that can be shone...ALL in context!

No actually I try to stay away from the copy and paste Theology( I much confess, I have been guilty a few times) Do you have a suggestion for a good source on ECF? Your right it is about context.

simonthezealot said:
BTW I find TBN more heretical at times than ewtn, and that says alot coming from a fundy like me

Yes your right! There some questionable programs on TBN. I can't say anything about EWTN my cable provider doesn't carry it, but I do get 4 protestant channels.....conspiracy I say!!!
</IMG>

Thekla · Sep 4, 2007

Hap said:
Do you have a suggestion for a good source on ECF?
</IMG>

http://www.ccel.org/

I messed up the link somehow, you'll need to click on HOME

simonthezealot · Sep 4, 2007

simonthezealot said:
CONTEXT...CONTEXT...

Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe. Jn 6:61-64

Again I tell you it's a lesson on FAITH

Allow me to perseverate on what leads up to this...

Jhn 6:25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?

Jhn 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

It was then he began to teach that they were looking for a miracle that would fill their stomachs ( as did the nation of Israel in the desert) . They wanted their temporal needs met.

Jhn 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

Jhn 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

Jhn 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Jesus laid out that salvation was by FAITH, and that was a work of the Father

Then they decided to put Christ to a test ...Give us PROOF. THEY brought up the manna ..

Jhn 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

They were still looking to get fed and have their human needs met.

Jhn 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

Jesus clarified where salvation comes from.

Jhn 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven

He was pointing out that the "bread from heaven " that kept their fathers only gave them physical life. HE on the other hands was sent from the father to give them eternal spiritual life.

They did not "get it" they were looking for REAL bread to give them life as had happened in the desert, they were looking for tangible bread like manna.

Jhn 6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

Jesus then patiently explained to them that His flesh is life for the world.. His crucified body was what was going to bring eternal life

Jhn 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Jhn 6:36 But I said unto you,That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
Jhn 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Jesus made a pretty clear statement here. YOU do not HEAR me because you are NOT given to me by the Father.

Jhn 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me.

Jhn 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The entire message is on salvation by faith .

Thekla · Sep 4, 2007

I must voice disagreement with Simon.

The belief in the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist also requires faith, ya know

Hap · Sep 4, 2007

simonthezealot said:
Still same question, if they understood Him as literal, why not gnaw?

CONTEXT...CONTEXT...

Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe. Jn 6:61-64

Again I tell you it's a lesson on FAITH

If Jesus clarifies that he is only speaking symbolically and it is really about faith then why do we read that his disciples still left and went back to their old ways.

simonthezealot · Sep 4, 2007

Thekla said:
http://www.ccel.org/

I messed up the link somehow, you'll need to click on HOME

This one works best, and as far as I know once your a member it is the single largest source available online. With an awesome word search program.

simonthezealot · Sep 4, 2007

Hap said:
If Jesus clarifies that he is only speaking symbolically and it is really about faith then why do we read that his disciples still left and went back to their old ways.

Jhn 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Jesus made a pretty clear statement here. YOU do not HEAR me because you are NOT given to me by the Father.

In other words my sheep hear my voice!

simonthezealot · Sep 4, 2007

Hap said:
Absolutly

</IMG>

Clement of Alexandria
"Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John,
brought this out by symbols, when He said:
'Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,' describing distinctly by
metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise,
by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting
of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together
and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope,
which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood.
For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as
by a vital principle." - Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 1:6)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.i.vi.html

Fireinfolding · Sep 4, 2007

Thekla said:
Hi, Fif --

please forgive me if I rush off mid-way (meeting tonight, but I'll be back), or if I misunderstand your questions -- just so you don't find me deliberately disrespectful ...

sorry for the ECF "letters" -- means "early Christian fathers" (elders and Saints who left writings, and those who did not but were written about because of their witness of Christ).

Many Christians who come to the boards here, and many I've met, do not believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. When others of us quote the early Christian writers, it is because the early Christians did believe it was truly His body and blood. The Apostles believed, but what is wonderful to me is that early Christians who were previously "wise in the eyes of the world" rejected that world for Christ. I think that for those who have trouble with this (the Eucharist being truly the body and blood of Christ), strengthens the fact of this belief -- for the educated unChristian, this belief (and belief in Christ) looked "stupid" (and dangerous) to the pagan society.

As for me, I think you are greatly blessed to experience His presence, and know it can happen (both ways) as He promised.

The only thing that changed between the breads of the OT/NT -- is Christ.

And Christ is our life, and greatly to be praised

Your never disrespectful Thelka, I get tied up, lose phone lines and have distractions too

I'm one of those that doesnt sis, I do see it symbolically of the Lords body, Who Himself is the true bread of heaven whose words were Spirit and Life. If His body (as so seen) is REAL food and REAL drink (in the physical sense of "real") then food and drink CAN indeed commend us to God. What we put in our mouth CAN make us clean (or unclean) and the Kingdom of God would have to be meat and drink and we are of the better if we eat or the worse for it if we do not (in regards to this food being). In short, I been looking at this for awhile, and I'll wait till I gather what I have together to better clarify how I see it. Its honestly neither here nor there with me, and certainly nothing to bicker about and I usually only say anything when the otherside starts in on one about it otherwise I leave it alone.

I guess we must eat the veil as well given the veil that was rent was His flesh too huh? It is a funny thought (to me) in this respect imagining a veil in my mouth lol...Now bread alone (or even His body) isnt a foreign idea but its the veil (in my mouth) that is strange huh? lol

Thelka, tell me what you might mean by the change between the breads (being Christ) while both are (as accepted) a physical bread right?

I'll be hitting the sack soon, Im extremely beat tonight I cant find paperclips to keep my eyes open much longer ... I'll catch ya tommorrow sis

simonthezealot · Sep 4, 2007

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xvi.ii.iv.xiv.html?

Origen
Origen didn't believe in transubstantiation. He refers to Christians consuming bread in communion, explains that the bread itself
doesn't profit those who consume it, and contrasts that bread with the person of Christ:
"Now, if 'everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,' even the meat
which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material,
goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith,
becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread
but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the
typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth
shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh,
who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that 'every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.'" (On Matthew, 11:14)

simonthezealot · Sep 4, 2007

Thekla said:
I must voice disagreement with Simon.

The belief in the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist also requires faith, ya know

I find substantial doctrinal differences between Transubstantiation and believing in real presence, "Real presense" can be defined in so many ways as proven via many ecw's. In a very very vague sense even I believe in a form of real presense in that sense that being a born again Christian..Christ IS in me!

Thekla · Sep 4, 2007

simonthezealot said:
Clement of Alexandria
"Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John,
brought this out by symbols, when He said:
'Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,' describing distinctly by
metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise,
by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting
of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together
and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope,
which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood.
For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as
by a vital principle." - Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 1:6)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.i.vi.html

IIRC, Clement of Alexandria is NOT considered a Saint in the EOrthodox Church; I think some of his writings were condemned because of doceticism

The Real Presence Debate Thread

Thekla

Guest

Thekla

Guest

Jesus I trust in You

Regular Member

Thekla

Guest

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?

Thekla

Guest

Regular Member

Thekla

Guest

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?

Thekla

Guest

Regular Member

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?

Well-Known Member

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?

Thekla

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency