Catholic Eucharist vs the Bible version - are they the same?

[Matt Black]

Because the RCC hierarchy has decreed that one is a metaphor and the other is not, and that no RC is permitted to see a metaphor where the RCC has decreed that one does not exist.

To reply to you and DHK, you have to read the Jn 6 Bread of Life Discourse (a) in its entirety and (b) in conjunction with the Words of Institution in the Synoptic Gospels: "This is My Body, this is My Blood". So, when read in tandem with "I am the Bread of Life", the meaning is clear: this is not merely an "I am...the Gate, the Door etc" -type statement, this is also a "This is..." statement. Now, Memorialists say that this "This is..." statement is no different to them saying "This is my wife" when referring to a photo of her ie: it doesn't mean it's actually her. But there is one crucial difference: they are not Jesus. Consider Who He is: the Second Person of the Trinity, the Word of God, there at the beginning in Gen 1:1. We see here and elsewhere that what He says effects a change in the fabric of reality, whether that's saying "Let there be light" in Genesis, or in the Gospels statements like "Your sins are forgiven" and "Your faith has made you well". As it is there, so it is here: "This is My Body, this is My Blood."

I can't see how any sane person with an ounce of common sense can draw a non-Realist conclusion from the above, unless they are swayed more by the prejudices of their own traditions (of men) than they are by the plain words of Scripture. That doesn't mean of course (to answer Bob's point) that one automatically becomes Catholic, as there are other churches who subscribe to a Realist position about Communion, but it does mean that in all conscience one cannot remain a non-Realist/ Memorialist...

 

[The Biblicist]

And it has been answered over and over again that is precisely what he did say to them "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

In the scriptures the words of "eateth" and "drinketh" are used to convey LITERAL MATETIAL PHYSICAL substances or used to convey SPIRITUAL NON-PHYSICAL substances.

Isaiah 55:1-5 is a perfect example as is John 6:35. The analogous use is obvious:

1. Hunger and thirst EQUAL physical or spiritual desires
2. Eateth and drinkeht EQUAL partaking of physical or spiritual substances
3. coming to someone can be PHYSICAL (geographical) or SPIRITUAL (faith)

His words are to be understood as "spiritual" not physical and "life" is obtained in understanding His words refer to the "spiritual" desires, substances, and partaking by faith as Peter clearly interprets "the words of life" to be spiritually partaking of him by faith or believing on him as the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

You can't get the clear analogous use any clearer than in John 6:35

34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
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.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

1. They wanted this bread of life RIGHT THEN - v. 34
2. Jesus identified himself as this bread of life RIGHT THEN - v. 35a
3. Coming and believing in him RIGHT THEN was Christ's response to FOREVER satisfy their hunger and thirst for that bread of life. Thus they are told to partake of that bread by faith right then and there.
4. They saw and refused to satisfy their hunger and thirst by partakng of the bread of life by faith - v. 36.

Can't get it clearer that Jesus is using eating and drinking, hungering and thirsting as words to convey SPIRITUAL food rather than PHYSICAL food.

Peter understood it completely as he identiied the "WORDS OF ETERNAL LIFE" that must be partaken of by faith:

thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

It is Rome's interpetation that has the greater problem. Jesus says that one's hunger and thirst for eternal life can be IMMEDIATELY satisfied by faith in Him as the bread of life - Jn. 6:34-35; 48-49 BEFORE he goes to the cross and he says this repeatedly from John 3:16, 5:24, ETC. Hence, eternal life can be equally obtained by faith in Christ as the spiritual bread of life as it can by Rome's interpretation of Christ as literal physical material food. However, Rome's interpretation of John 8:51 denies both equally.

here is the "ounce of common sense" you need to understand this passage correctly.

As I have previously said, Rome has the greater problem here. Jesus plainly and explicilty states that faith in Him as the Bread of life obtains eternal life right then and there prior to the cross (Jn. 6:35; 48-49). He makes this claim all through the gospels to Nicodemus (Jn. 3:15-16) to the woman at the well (Jn. 4:10,13-14) to the scribes and pharisees (Jn. 5:24) and now to this audiance. Jesus claims eternal life can be obtained EQUALLY by faith in Him as the bread of life as in eating of him as the bread of life.

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.

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.

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

68 ...thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Hence, either Rome must embrace two different ways to obtain eternal life; one by faith BEFORE the cross and one by literally eating Christ AFTER the cross OR Rome must repudiate that eternal life could be obtained by faith BEFORE the cross - either way Rome is in a dilemma. The latter way is called the gospel and thus eternal life can be obtained without partaking in the Lord's Supper. The same gospel AFTER the cross claims the same thing. Rome is demanding "another gospel" for eternal life if it accepts both ways - one by faith, one by eating. If it denies eternal life could be obtained by faith BEFORE the cross then it must repudiate the very words of Christ wherein every instance uses the present tense "HATH" everlasting life.

 

[Matt Black]

Evangelicalism has the same dilemma though: faith before the Crucifixion is of no avail (no atonement, you see?). So what's your point?

And you haven't addressed the problem of the Words of Institution, so quod scripsi, scripsit.

 

[The Biblicist]

Evangelicalism has the same dilemma though: faith before the Crucifixion is of no avail (no atonement, you see?). So what's your point?

No! Only "HYPER dispensational" evangelicalism has that problem. So you deny Abraham was "justified by faith" prior to the cross??????? So you believe Jesus repeatedly lied every time he said that present tense beleiving obtains present tense eternal life? In other words you are alright with calling Christ a liar in order to justify Rome?????

And you haven't addressed the problem of the Words of Institution, so quod scripsi, scripsit.

Either you did not read my last post or did not understand it. I completely exposed and repudiated that idea completely and thoroughly. You are simply ignoring the clear analogous use of food throughout the scriptures for spiritual desires, spiritual food (desire the sincere milk of the word) for spiritual life. Jesus flatly repudiates your claim that his FOOD words were to be understood in the PHYSICAL sense (Jn. 6:60) but rather in the SPIRITUAL sense. Peter spells it out in the SPIRITUAL sense.

 

[Matt Black]

Nope, I'm not calling Christ a liar. I fully understand the concept of prospective-retrospective justification, unlike most evangelicals I know (who are, admittedly, mainly dispies). I just don't think you can make it mean what you think it means...

And you haven't really addressed the effective nature of Jesus' words.

 

[The Biblicist]

Nope, I'm not calling Christ a liar. I fully understand the concept of prospective-retrospective justification, unlike most evangelicals I know (who are, admittedly, mainly dispies). I just don't think you can make it mean what you think it means...

There is appropriate language to convey prospective-retrospective concepts and the language used for justification and eternal life BEFORE Calvary does not support your idea! The future tense, or the future perfect would support the prospective idea not the present tense and Jesus uses the present tense "believeth" and "hath" everlasting life! Are you claiming that "believeth" is prospective? He is not calling on his audiance to believe the gospel right then and there when he exhorts them to PRESENT TENSE "come" to Him"?

In regard to Abraham's justification, Paul pin points it before his circumcison (Rom. 4:9-11). He treats his justification as an historical event equally as much as his circumcision! Do you think his circumcision occured BEFORE calvary???? Maybe his circumcision was perspective too, huh???????

His exhortations to PRESENT TENSE "hath" eternal life is no more prospective than his PRESENT TENSE exhortation to "come" and "beleiveth" are prospective. Abraham's justification by faith is no more prospective than his circumcision is prospective as they are treated together in a time relationship to each other and justification is clearly stated to have occurred BEFORE circucumcision much less before the cross.

This is why you are forced to philosophize rather than be faithful to God's Word in this matter as you have no Biblical basis to support your wild claims. So speculative theology is your only refuge as sound hermeneutics condemns and exposes your imaginitive doctrines.

And you haven't really addressed the effective nature of Jesus' words.

The fact that you cannot provide any rebuttal for the analgous use of FOOD words in scripture sufficiently repudiates your assertions. The analgous use of food words is plainly spelled out by Christ previous to John 6:51-58 in John 6:34-36 - plainly, unmistakenly, obviously, clearly, unambiguously, etc., and therefore provides the contextual basis to intepret John 6:51-58 according to the analgous use of food terms. John 6:60 plainly states his use of food terms was not to be understood in the PHYSICAL sense but in the SPIRITUAL sense as in "desire the sincere milk of the word" not PHYSICAL milk but SPIRITUAL milk - God's Word.

The analgous use of FOOD words is has clear precedent in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. Jesus uses it unmistakenly in John 6:34-36 and thus provides it as precedent right in the very context preceding the scriptures we are debating. Jesus explicity denies his words are to be understood in a PHYSICAL sense immediately following John 6:51-58 and in direct connection with the reaction of his disciples to those words. Peter gets it and plainly converts the physical to the spiritual and plainly defines exactly what the "words of eternal life" are "WE BELIEVE and are SURE thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." How much plainer can one get????????? We do not need Platonic Philosophy and rediculous literalization of Christ's words to understand the simplicity that Peter expresses plainly!

 

[Matt Black]

You do understand that God is outside of time, don't you?

FOOD (why the caps?) words are nothing to do with "This is My Body, this is My Blood". These are precatory words because they are spoken by the very Word of God Himself.

 

[DHK]

You do understand that God is outside of time, don't you?

FOOD (why the caps?) words are nothing to do with "This is My Body, this is My Blood". These are precatory words because they are spoken by the very Word of God Himself.

If it is not a metaphor it goes against all reason, and takes faith to the greatest degree of faith in superstition to believe that three basic chemicals (carbon, hydrogen and oxygen), the ingredients that make up bread, somehow change to a human. This is pure superstition, greater than even the pagan Hindus believe. We look at the bread and wine/juice. We see no visible change and yet are supposed to believe a lie that there is a change. How is that possible to believe this lie? What strange power does the priests hold over the common parishioners that they should believe so? Bread looks like bread, tastes like bread, and indeed is bread.

So it was with Manna, whom Jesus also claimed to me, when he said: I am that manna that fell from heaven. It was round and tasted like coriander seed. "I am the bread of life." They are all metaphors. The Israelites did not pick up Jesus from off the ground and put him in their pots that they might eat him later on (instructions given on the day before the Sabbath).

How do the priests get the people to believe some of the greatest superstitions known to mankind--that these basic chemicals--carbon, hydrogen and oxygen: turn into a human, that is Jesus Christ?
Truly amazing!

 

[targus]

If it is not a metaphor it goes against all reason, and takes faith to the greatest degree of faith in superstition to believe that three basic chemicals (carbon, hydrogen and oxygen), the ingredients that make up bread, somehow change to a human.

This is a rather startling line of argument to hear from a Christian...

Something that is taken on faith is superstition?

Atheists say the thing about Christians.

 

[The Biblicist]

You do understand that God is outside of time, don't you?

You don't understand that faith and circumcision do not exist outside of time and that justification is placed in a TIME relationship with both by Paul in Romans 4:9-11. So your speculative rationalization is flawed by context.

FOOD (why the caps?) words are nothing to do with "This is My Body, this is My Blood". These are precatory words because they are spoken by the very Word of God Himself.

You can't deal with anything I said in my former post - NOTHING! You simply repeat absolute unsubstantiated assertions like a parrot.

You can't deal with the biblical evidence that FOOD WORDS are used analogous to convey SPIRITUAL FOOD that has no actual literal association with each other at all.

You can't deal with the Biblical fact that John 6:34-36 is unmistakenly a clear example of this analgous use of PHYSICAL food words to convey SPIRITUAL food satisfaction, thus laying the contextual precedence for understanding John 6:51-58.

You can't deal with the Biblical fact that John 6:60 is an explicit denial that his words are to be understood and interpreted in a PHYSICAL sense.

You can't deal with the Biblical fact that Peter admits to the analogous use of his food words to be representative of spiritual food, faith in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Again, you cannot deal with the evidence that FOOD words are used analgous with spiritual substances and so you just repeat nonsense.

 

[The Biblicist]

This is a rather startling line of argument to hear from a Christian...

Something that is taken on faith is superstition?

Atheists say the thing about Christians.

Not as startling as your conclusions to what he said! Do you know the difference between BLIND and BIBLICAL faith? Apparently not! Blind faith is not based upon anything. Biblical faith is based upon God's Word which no kind of emperical evidences will contradict. Why? Because the TRUTH of God's Word does not contradict TRUTH in God's world. God created the world out of nothing but nothing in the world can successfuly contradict that truth. However, everything known to be truth in God's world contradicts the superstition of transustantiation. Indeed, nothing in God's Word or world is parallel to that superstituous idea except in the minds of superstitious cults.

 

[targus]

Not as startling as your conclusions to what he said! Do you know the difference between BLIND and BIBLICAL faith? Apparently not! Blind faith is not based upon anything. Biblical faith is based upon God's Word which no kind of emperical evidences will contradict. Why? Because the TRUTH of God's Word does not contradict TRUTH in God's world. God created the world out of nothing but nothing in the world can successfuly contradict that truth. However, everything known to be truth in God's world contradicts the superstition of transustantiation. Indeed, nothing in God's Word or world is parallel to that superstituous idea except in the minds of superstitious cults.

First - Matt Black is basing his faith on an interpretation of the Bible. Granted it is a different interpretation of the Bible than yours. But a reasonable interpretation none the less.

Second - Are you even remotely aware of how disrespectful to others you come off in your writing? Normally Christians are much more polite and respectful to others than you are showing on the board in general.

 

[DHK]

This is a rather startling line of argument to hear from a Christian...

Something that is taken on faith is superstition?

Atheists say the thing about Christians.

Faith must have an object.
The object of my faith is Jesus Christ.
Evolution must be taken by faith. It works outside the realm of science, for science (to be science) needs observation. No one observed the "big bang." It must be taken by faith. The evolutionist puts their faith in a theory that the earth was formed by a "big bang" rather than created by God. The object of their faith is simply a "guess" a "theory." Not much to go on is it.

What is the object of the Muslim's faith when he straps a bomb on himself and thinks he will go to paradise as he dies a martyr for his faith? Is it the Koran? His Muslim cleric? His mother? What is the object of his faith? It is not the Bible.

All faith has an object. Thus faith alone does not save. Faith in the sacrificial blood of Christ saves.

Faith in a superstition that bread turns into the body of Christ is nonsense.
It is not a Christian doctrine and never was. What is the basis of this belief? What is the object of the faith. The basis of my belief in the Bible is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is factual.
The basis of transubstantiation is not factual it is superstition. It has no basis. Its object is what? Faith in a wafer? It is not faith in Christ. It is faith based on a superstition and faith in a superstition--a superstitious and blind faith. This is not something that the Bible condones.

 

[The Biblicist]

First - Matt Black is basing his faith on an interpretation of the Bible. Granted it is a different interpretation of the Bible than yours. But a reasonable interpretation none the less.

Please reread what I said. I never denied his view is based upon his interpretation of the scriptures. What I denied is that God's truth in Scripture will be contradicted by God's truth in creation. Faith in God's Word that He created the world will not be contradicted by any truth found in God's creation.

Transubstantiation not only contradicts the overall truth of Scripture, the context of John 6, but in addition contradicts God's truth in creation.

Sec

ond - Are you even remotely aware of how disrespectful to others you come off in your writing? Normally Christians are much more polite and respectful to others than you are showing on the board in general.

I made no comments about your person or his person. Now are you going to tell me that what I said in the previous post to you is as bad as the following words:

I can't see how any sane person with an ounce of common sense can draw a non-Realist conclusion from the above, unless they are swayed more by the prejudices of their own traditions (of men) than they are by the plain words of Scripture. - Matt Black

I don't recall you rebuking Matt and I didn't even come close to such a statement. If saying I believe you are wrong or asking you if you know the difference between blind and Biblical faith is offensive, then you need to read the posts I have been receiving from your side of the isle.

 

[targus]

The basis of transubstantiation is not factual it is superstition. It has no basis. Its object is what? Faith in a wafer? It is not faith in Christ. It is faith based on a superstition and faith in a superstition--a superstitious and blind faith. This is not something that the Bible condones.

Matt Black's faith in transubstantiation is based on the words of Jesus in the book of John.

You may disagree with that interpretation but it is not a faith based on superstition.

 

[DHK]

Matt Black's faith in transubstantiation is based on the words of Jesus in the book of John.

You may disagree with that interpretation but it is not a faith based on superstition.

I have demonstrated that his interpretation can only be superstition.
As Jesus Christ is not a door, a vine, a branch, a light, etc. neither is he bread or wine.
They are metaphors, not one excepted.
If one is literal they are all literal; if one is a metaphor they are all metaphors. Why take one as a metaphor then excuse the other as a metaphor only to fit a twisted and superstitious theology--one that not even a paganistic Hindu would believe.

Who on this earth believes that chemicals like Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen, when blessed turns into the body and blood of Christ, when that body and blood cannot be seen. It is just said to be there, and dogmatically so, even though you cannot see it. Why tell lies?
Is there really a Santa Claus?
At least there are people that dress up like one to perpetuate the lie.
Here no one even dresses up like Christ to perpetuate this lie. You are just told that it is Christ, tastes like Christ, (and who knows what he tastes like), ugh!!
The whole thing is repulsive. It is beyond faith even.

 

[The Biblicist]

Please reread what I said. I never denied his view is based upon his interpretation of the scriptures. What I denied is that God's truth in Scripture will be contradicted by God's truth in creation. Faith in God's Word that He created the world will not be contradicted by any truth found in God's creation.

Transubstantiation not only contradicts the overall truth of Scripture, the context of John 6, but in addition contradicts God's truth in creation.

Sec

I made no comments about your person or his person. Now are you going to tell me that what I said in the previous post to you is as bad as the following words:

I can't see how any sane person with an ounce of common sense can draw a non-Realist conclusion from the above, unless they are swayed more by the prejudices of their own traditions (of men) than they are by the plain words of Scripture. - Matt Black

I don't recall you rebuking Matt and I didn't even come close to such a statement. If saying I believe you are wrong or asking you if you know the difference between blind and Biblical faith is offensive, then you need to read the posts I have been receiving from your side of the isle.

There is no biblical basis to conclude that John 6:51-58 must be interpreted literally.

Rome uses this text to defend its position on Lord's Supper when this text says absolutely nothing about the Lord's Supper nor is the Lord's Supper even instituted until much later.

Instead, the Roman exegete must completely ignore the preceding and foregong context of John 6 and the fact that there is clear precedence for the analoguous understanding of such language clearly laid down in the same context preceding the disputed verses in John 6:34-36 and John 6:48-49. They must equally ignore the Lord's complete denial in John 6:60 that his words in John 6:52-58 should be taken in a PHYSICAL sense. In addition he must completely ignore that immediatley afterwards in direct response to the other disciples leaving Christ over these exact words, that Peter understands clearly he is speaking analogously and claims that he has personally appropriated "the words of eternal life" by faith alone in Christ (vv. 68-69).

One must seriously ask, what kind of spirit would ignore such obvious contextual indicators that He is merely speaking analogously espeically when the Lord Himself so clearly uses that analogous method so clearly in John 6:34-36?????????

 

[Matt Black]

If it is not a metaphor it goes against all reason, and takes faith to the greatest degree of faith in superstition to believe that three basic chemicals (carbon, hydrogen and oxygen), the ingredients that make up bread, somehow change to a human. This is pure superstition, greater than even the pagan Hindus believe. We look at the bread and wine/juice. We see no visible change and yet are supposed to believe a lie that there is a change. How is that possible to believe this lie? What strange power does the priests hold over the common parishioners that they should believe so? Bread looks like bread, tastes like bread, and indeed is bread.

So it was with Manna, whom Jesus also claimed to me, when he said: I am that manna that fell from heaven. It was round and tasted like coriander seed. "I am the bread of life." They are all metaphors. The Israelites did not pick up Jesus from off the ground and put him in their pots that they might eat him later on (instructions given on the day before the Sabbath).

How do the priests get the people to believe some of the greatest superstitions known to mankind--that these basic chemicals--carbon, hydrogen and oxygen: turn into a human, that is Jesus Christ?
Truly amazing!

Wait! What?! So are you now denying the supernatural, the miraculous? 'Metaphor' now, what next?! An allegorical reading of Scripture, a la Origen? The first 11 chapters of Genesis as myth?

You're sounding like a liberal.

 

[Matt Black]

You don't understand that faith and circumcision do not exist outside of time and that justification is placed in a TIME relationship with both by Paul in Romans 4:9-11. So your speculative rationalization is flawed by context.



You can't deal with anything I said in my former post - NOTHING! You simply repeat absolute unsubstantiated assertions like a parrot.

You can't deal with the biblical evidence that FOOD WORDS are used analogous to convey SPIRITUAL FOOD that has no actual literal association with each other at all.

You can't deal with the Biblical fact that John 6:34-36 is unmistakenly a clear example of this analgous use of PHYSICAL food words to convey SPIRITUAL food satisfaction, thus laying the contextual precedence for understanding John 6:51-58.

You can't deal with the Biblical fact that John 6:60 is an explicit denial that his words are to be understood and interpreted in a PHYSICAL sense.

You can't deal with the Biblical fact that Peter admits to the analogous use of his food words to be representative of spiritual food, faith in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Again, you cannot deal with the evidence that FOOD words are used analgous with spiritual substances and so you just repeat nonsense.

The Words of Institution are nothing to do with food (or FOOD if you prefer shouty capitals) and everything to do with Jesus. If you leave the rabbit trail about food (or FOOD) and actually deal with Jesus' Nature and thus the nature of His words rather than taking refuge in insulting tones, we might just be able to have a conversation.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Words of Institution are nothing to do with food (or FOOD if you prefer shouty capitals) and everything to do with Jesus. If you leave the rabbit trail about food (or FOOD) and actually deal with Jesus' Nature and thus the nature of His words rather than taking refuge in insulting tones, we might just be able to have a conversation.

How can we have a conversation when you ignore every contextual factor that precedes and follows the debated text.

How can you possibly ignore the fact that Jesus clearly and explicity inserts into this context the analgous use of food in John 6:34-35?????

How can you possibly ignore that Jesus explicitly denies that his words in John 6:52-58 are to be understood PHYSICALLY - v. 60??????

How can you possibly ignore that Peter clearly and explicity understands his explanation in verse 60 to be analogous with food but not literal physical food - vv. 68-69?????

How can you possible ignore that INSTITUTION of the Lord's Supper does not occur to nearly two years after this so there is no institionalization here of anything in regard to the Lord's Supper at all!

You have nothing but a superstitious eisgetical non-contextual assertion to base your whole exposition of this text upon - nothing! But that is not the worst of your assertion. You are asserting it in spite of contextual evidence before and after that totally repudiates this superstitious Catholic thinking.