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

[Bill the Cat]

IMO it's not accurate to say that the Eucharist was modeled after the Passover meal. It was instituted during the Passover meal, and uses two elements from it. Regardless, they were a shadow or type pointing to the reality which is Jesus; how is that an argument against the real presence?

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.

[One Bad Pig]

One need only look at the Jewish ritual that the Eucharist was modeled after to excuse those arguments. Every item in the Shabbat meal had a significance and reference to Messiah. None were actually Him, but all were symbols to point to Him, from the plates to the salt to the bread to the prayers offered. Offending any of these items was akin to offending Messiah Himself.

IMO it's not accurate to say that the Eucharist was modeled after the Passover meal. It was instituted during the Passover meal, and uses two elements from it. Regardless, they were a shadow or type pointing to the reality which is Jesus; how is that an argument against the real presence?

[Littlejoe]

I don't think the belief in the real presence is necessary for salvation, however, I find that a lack of belief in the real presence dismisses the importance of communion, and it also allows for some irreverence, as well as the relevance of it to the Christian walk.

Could not disagree with you more on this. This implies that without actually participating in the sacrifice, there is no way to honor the same. To me, it seem you are saying that because I did not serve in the Armed Forces and participate in true Battle, attending a Memorial Service has a measure of irreverence and dismisses the importance of the service by others...am I misreading you?

and dismisses the scriptures that strongly imply that as we partake in communion we are partaking in the Sacrifice of Christ.

Where are those again?

I mean we can agree that if we partake of baptism we participate in the resurrection so why ought we not partake and reverence the communion. I am more inclined that communion is holy and should be done kneeling and prefer the Lutheran/Anglican belief on it, but am less inclined to the Catholic belief on it.

Yes, the Transubstantiation vs Consubstantiation discussion is an interesting one...and if I were shown that the real presences was necessary, I too would be more inclined to the Lutheran/Anglican belief as well...

[Cow Poke]

One need only look at the Jewish ritual that the Eucharist was modeled after to excuse those arguments. Every item in the Shabbat meal had a significance and reference to Messiah. None were actually Him, but all were symbols to point to Him, from the plates to the salt to the bread to the prayers offered. Offending any of these items was akin to offending Messiah Himself.

and the wine!

[Bill the Cat]

One need only look at the Jewish ritual that the Eucharist was modeled after to excuse those arguments. Every item in the Shabbat meal had a significance and reference to Messiah. None were actually Him, but all were symbols to point to Him, from the plates to the salt to the bread to the prayers offered. Offending any of these items was akin to offending Messiah Himself.

[Cow Poke]

I don't think the belief in the real presence is necessary for salvation, however, I find that a lack of belief in the real presence dismisses the importance of communion, and it also allows for some irreverence, as well as the relevance of it to the Christian walk.

Before I married, I dated a Catholic girl, and attended mass with her. That "real presence" became a point of discussion, and a lot of her Catholic friends admitted they didn't really believe it -- they just went along with it "because they were supposed to". I think this can be true in any Church. We don't teach the "real presence" in the sense that Catholics do, but nor do we have any "irreverence" related to it. When we celebrate "The Lord's Supper" - the whole service is dedicated to it.

and dismisses the scriptures that strongly imply that as we partake in communion we are partaking in the Sacrifice of Christ.

Would you mind listing those scriptures?

I mean we can agree that if we partake of baptism we participate in the resurrection so why ought we not partake and reverence the communion. I am more inclined that communion is holy and should be done kneeling and prefer the Lutheran/Anglican belief on it, but am less inclined to the Catholic belief on it.

I think a major component is the attitude of the recipient. I suspect you'll agree with that. No matter how "reverent" the Church makes it - the onus is still on the individual to "examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."

[Catholicity]

I don't think the belief in the real presence is necessary for salvation, however, I find that a lack of belief in the real presence dismisses the importance of communion, and it also allows for some irreverence, as well as the relevance of it to the Christian walk. and dismisses the scriptures that strongly imply that as we partake in communion we are partaking in the Sacrifice of Christ. I mean we can agree that if we partake of baptism we participate in the resurrection so why ought we not partake and reverence the communion. I am more inclined that communion is holy and should be done kneeling and prefer the Lutheran/Anglican belief on it, but am less inclined to the Catholic belief on it.

[robrecht]

Scuse me while I find some paper towels to wipe the coffee splatters off my monitor.

Not the first time a computer screen has protected me!

[Cow Poke]

Same thing with Mary too. Do you think Jesus likes his followers bringing his mother into their fights with one another? But, of course, we all know that Mary does help Notre Dame win football games.

Scuse me while I find some paper towels to wipe the coffee splatters off my monitor.

[robrecht]

Same way with the Holy Spirit, Rob. When Jesus told His disciples He would "pray the Father" that the Holy Spirit be sent so we would not be alone in our walk, I can't believe He intended for the Holy Spirit to be a constant source of division in our Churches. Yet many of our arguments come about over who "has the Holy Spirit", when one "gets" the Holy Spirit, whether or not tongues is required as proof of Salvation, etc.

Same thing with Mary too. Do you think Jesus likes his followers bringing his mother into their fights with one another? But, of course, we all know that Mary does help Notre Dame win football games.

[Cow Poke]

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?"

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.

Same way with the Holy Spirit, Rob. When Jesus told His disciples He would "pray the Father" that the Holy Spirit be sent so we would not be alone in our walk, I can't believe He intended for the Holy Spirit to be a constant source of division in our Churches. Yet many of our arguments come about over who "has the Holy Spirit", when one "gets" the Holy Spirit, whether or not tongues is required as proof of Salvation, etc.

[robrecht]

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?"

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.

[One Bad Pig]

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?

[37818]

". . . But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, . . . or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, . . ." -- 2 Corinthians 11:3-4.

Now I honestly believe that the claims of the so-called Real Presence in the Eucharist is a false Jesus and a false gospel. So what I am asking here is if you believe such, how did you come to that belief?

Now I believe being born of God is what God does for those whom He saves.

"Who were born . . . of God." -- John 1:13.

"Whosoever believeth Jesus is the Christ is born of God, . . ." -- 1 John 5:1.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me [Jesus saying this] hath everlasting life." -- John 6:47.

It is just that simple. God does the saving. God does the keeping.