. . . the Real Presence in the Eucharist or another Jesus another gospel.

[robrecht]

The fact is the history, behind the question, "Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?" What is presumed is that the Real Presence is in the Eucharist. Where in fact Holy Scriptures teach no such thing.

Then please set it straight what you are contending here. Since my argument is against the false claim that the Real Presence is in the Eucharist.

Same thing that I have said all along:

With St Paul:

"The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?"

Now one can try and define the meaning of the Eucharist in many ways, and the above words speak of participation in the body and blood of Christ's sacrifice, the latter element perhaps only hinted at here, but one pont is crystal clear, namely, that the Eucharist should be a source of communion among all of us, as members of the body of Christ. I do not believe that Jesus, on the night before he died, celebrated a final meal with his disciples and thereby intended to institute theological dissension and a source of division among his followers. And yet, the various interpretations of the Eucharist have been a matter of bitter dispute in the history of the church, especially since the Reformation. I do not believe that was Jesus' intent.

[37818]

Why is it related? And why include it when you dismiss its relation as immaterial?

. . . Holy Scripture does not support in any way the Real Presence being in the elements.

When Holy Scripture does not support in any way the Real Presence being in the elements.

That's a ridiculous statement. Jesus says repeatedly in John 6 that He is the bread of life, and compares eating His flesh to the Jews eating manna in the wilderness.

Nowhere in John 6 is Jesus speaking about the Eucharist. He is speaking about coming to Him in faith using metaphor of eating His flesh, coming to Him to never hunger, and drinking His blood, believing in Him to never thirst.

What purpose do you suppose to justify the belief that there is the Real Presence in the elements?

Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking here.

Why is it important that the Real Presence be in the Eucharist? The Bible doesn't teach it.

Why? Christ calls the elements His body! You're not making any sense.

In the remembrance, Jesus used the bread to represent His body and the cup to represent the blood of the New Covenant. Metaphor. It was to be and is a remembrance of what He was about to accomplish once and for all on the cross.

Truth is not contingent upon it being a conclusion. It should be the starting point.

Please don't play dumb. The complete lack of reasoning you're displaying here is precisely why the disagreements you so deplore within Christianity cause division. Everyone who disagrees with you over something is not following a false gospel.

Fine. Show what I'm claiming is different is not. Or show how the two views are different and do not change the one gospel. Show your view is reasonable and show my view and explain why my view is not reasonable. Set the record straight. Thanks.

[37818]

I think I followed you pretty well up to here. What fact were you referring to here? And 'you are presuming' that I and others 'are presuming' this fact? If it is a fact, whatever it is, why is there any presumption involved?

The fact is the history, behind the question, "Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?" What is presumed is that the Real Presence is in the Eucharist. Where in fact Holy Scriptures teach no such thing.

I think you are making some wild assumptions here. Where have I ever said that the real presence is in the elements and not in the believers? Of what value is it for you to make such a distinction (in the elements vs in the believers) and to falsely claim that I affirm one part of your distinction and deny the other part of your distinction? I'm not sure who exactly you are arguing with here, but it feels as if you are trying to manipulate my words to fit into some argument in your head.

Then please set it straight what you are contending here. Since my argument is against the false claim that the Real Presence is in the Eucharist.

[Bill the Cat]

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02091.htm


As far as connecting it with resurrection, Irenaeus does so for me:

Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. (Irenaeus of Lyons - Against Heresies - Against Heresies Book 4, Chapter 18, section 5) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103418.htm

[Bill the Cat]

How not?

Because they weren't. It was not the bread that was crucified, nor the wine that spilled on the ground. They were being called REMINDERS of what was about to occur with the genuine article.

He referred to His sacrifice, yes. Resurrection, no. And you're the one calling the Eucharist a symbol, not I.

Can you really separate the two?

I agree, the elements do not physically change. However, that does not mean they do (did) not actually become (part of) Him.

Nor does it mean that they did.

[robrecht]

... Now I presume that this fact is presumed by you and others to justify what I see as the misconception of the Real Presence being in the Eucharist it self.

I think I followed you pretty well up to here. What fact were you referring to here? And 'you are presuming' that I and others 'are presuming' this fact? If it is a fact, whatever it is, why is there any presumption involved?

I added the underline. The dispute is because of view of the Real Presence being in the elements, which is false. And that falsehood is the cause of the dispute. The Real Presence is in the believers (1 John 5:12) not the elements.

Now please connect the dots, as you have believed the Real Presence, as being in the elements, to be support in the view I'm contending is error. And if you would show the contrast between what I have explained and what you have argued. Thanks.

As I understand the contrast, the Real Presence is in the elements versus the Real Presence being in the believers being the Body of Christ.

I think you are making some wild assumptions here. Where have I ever said that the real presence is in the elements and not in the believers? Of what value is it for you to make such a distinction (in the elements vs in the believers) and to falsely claim that I affirm one part of your distinction and deny the other part of your distinction? I'm not sure who exactly you are arguing with here, but it feels as if you are trying to manipulate my words to fit into some argument in your head.

[One Bad Pig]

Why is it unrelated?

Why is it related? And why include it when you dismiss its relation as immaterial?

When Holy Scripture does not support in any way the Real Presence being in the elements.

That's a ridiculous statement. Jesus says repeatedly in John 6 that He is the bread of life, and compares eating His flesh to the Jews eating manna in the wilderness.

What purpose do you suppose to justify the belief that there is the Real Presence in the elements?

Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking here.

The Real Presence being in the Body of Christ makes the claim of the Real Presence in the elements false.

Why? Christ calls the elements His body! You're not making any sense.

Truth is not contingent upon it being a conclusion. It should be the starting point.

Please don't play dumb. The complete lack of reasoning you're displaying here is precisely why the disagreements you so deplore within Christianity cause division. Everyone who disagrees with you over something is not following a false gospel.

[37818]

Then why throw in unrelated material which is only going to sow confusion from its presence?

Why is it unrelated? When Holy Scripture does not support in any way the Real Presence being in the elements. What purpose do you suppose to justify the belief that there is the Real Presence in the elements?

Why can it not be in both?

The Real Presence being in the Body of Christ makes the claim of the Real Presence in the elements false.

You appear to be arguing from, not toward, a conclusion.

Truth is not contingent upon it being a conclusion. It should be the starting point.

[One Bad Pig]

That is because there is no Real Presence in the Eucharist. That is the point I'm making here.

Then why throw in unrelated material which is only going to sow confusion from its presence?

As I understand the contrast, the Real Presence is in the elements versus the Real Presence being in the believers being the Body of Christ.

Why can it not be in both? You appear to be arguing from, not toward, a conclusion.

[37818]

I'm not sure where you're going with this. At first glance, most of your post has no explicit connection to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Could you clarify the connection?

That is because there is no Real Presence in the Eucharist. That is the point I'm making here.

Thank you for bringing up, St Paul:

"The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?"

"The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ?" Yes.

"The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?" And yes.

That is because the Real Presence is NOT IN the elements of the Eucharist. But is in the Body of Christ which all true believers are of. "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." It being the remembrance of Christ's death (1 Corinthians 11:26) which the members of that one bread partake. (see also 1 John 5:1, 12; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Romans 8:9.)

"Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?" Which is the historical fact.

Now I presume that this fact is presumed by you and others to justify what I see as the misconception of the Real Presence being in the Eucharist it self.

Now one can try and define the meaning of the Eucharist in many ways, and the above words speak of participation in the body and blood of Christ's sacrifice, the latter element perhaps only hinted at here, but one point is crystal clear, namely, that the Eucharist should be a source of communion among all of us, as members of the body of Christ. I do not believe that Jesus, on the night before he died, celebrated a final meal with his disciples and thereby intended to institute theological dissension and a source of division among his followers. And yet, the various interpretations of the Eucharist have been a matter of bitter dispute in the history of the church, especially since the Reformation. I do not believe that was Jesus' intent.

I added the underline. The dispute is because of view of the Real Presence being in the elements, which is false. And that falsehood is the cause of the dispute. The Real Presence is in the believers (1 John 5:12) not the elements.

Now please connect the dots, as you have believed the Real Presence, as being in the elements, to be support in the view I'm contending is error. And if you would show the contrast between what I have explained and what you have argued. Thanks.

As I understand the contrast, the Real Presence is in the elements versus the Real Presence being in the believers being the Body of Christ.

[One Bad Pig]

And Jesus was not saying that the bread and wine had suddenly and actually become Him either.

How not?

He said they represented His future sacrifice and His future resurrection, which had obviously not occurred at the time of its implementation. If it were a future symbol (as it was in the Shabbat meal) of a not-yet occurred act, then it would always be that.

He referred to His sacrifice, yes. Resurrection, no. And you're the one calling the Eucharist a symbol, not I.

His instructions were to the Disciples themselves that the bread that THEY were eating was His body, and the wine THEY were drinking was His blood. Again, symbols of a future act. And when they would later repeat the ritual, it was in remembrance of Him and what He did. It was not actually Him. It does not become actual flesh and blood. While His presence is in the elements, to be sure, it does not change the elements into something else.

I agree, the elements do not physically change. However, that does not mean they do (did) not actually become (part of) Him.

[Bill the Cat]

God never declared Himself to be the Ark of the Covenant.

And Jesus was not saying that the bread and wine had suddenly and actually become Him either. He said they represented His future sacrifice and His future resurrection, which had obviously not occurred at the time of its implementation. If it were a future symbol (as it was in the Shabbat meal) of a not-yet occurred act, then it would always be that. His instructions were to the Disciples themselves that the bread that THEY were eating was His body, and the wine THEY were drinking was His blood. Again, symbols of a future act. And when they would later repeat the ritual, it was in remembrance of Him and what He did. It was not actually Him. It does not become actual flesh and blood. While His presence is in the elements, to be sure, it does not change the elements into something else.

[Bill the Cat]

And if you apply that reasoning to the person of Jesus, it becomes a heresy whose name I can't recall offhand.

I'm not trying to equate the Incarnation with a human-crafted symbol that symbolizes the Messiah. Bread and wine are made by human hands too.

[Spartacus]

Because it was never intended to be understood that way. It's like the Ark of The Covenant. It was not YHWH Himself, nor did it become YHWH when His manifested presence rested upon it.

And if you apply that reasoning to the person of Jesus, it becomes a heresy whose name I can't recall offhand.

[One Bad Pig]

Because it was never intended to be understood that way. It's like the Ark of The Covenant. It was not YHWH Himself, nor did it become YHWH when His manifested presence rested upon it.

God never declared Himself to be the Ark of the Covenant.