trying2understand
New Member
Simple. They didn't! </font>[/QUOTE]So you say.
I can provide historical evidence that early Christians believed in the Real Presence.
Can you provide evidence that they did not?
That is what I am looking for.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
When was "Real Presence" first denied?
- Thread starter trying2understand
- Start date
I can provide historical evidence that early Christians believed in the Real Presence.
Can you provide evidence that they did not?
That is what I am looking for.
CatholicConvert
New Member
AITB -
I also appreciate your thoughtful responses.
I try to remain respectful and gracious although I don't always succeed at it. I don't see that getting angry or rude does anything but distract and detract from substantive discussion and besides, I think it's not pleasing to God to behave that way.
I have the distinct feeling that your husband has a gem for a wife, as your children also have a gem for a Mommy.
Re: marriage imagery - I agree on the value of it; I've done some study of it myself. However you are using the imagery of marriage consummation - the physical relationship - and my understanding is that we aren't married yet - we are only 'betrothed' - because Rev 19:6-9 speaks of the wedding supper as an event which comes after Jesus' return for His prospective bride:
Food for thought: I realize that what I am about to say will be highly disagreed with, having come from a similar eschatological background myself.
I believe that the Lord returned in AD 70, which is the "Preterist" view of Eschatology. There are several reasons which compell me to take this view:
1. The "time indicators" of Scripture. Our Lord said in Matthew 16:28 that His return would take place before all who were present there listening to Him died. He speaks to John in the Revelation that His return is "soon" "at hand" and "near". The tense of all these words is imperative, indicating an urgency in their completion, rather than a wait of 2000+ years.
2. So clear seemed this fact to St. Paul and others who wrote the epistles which are in the Bible that we see references to their expectation that the Lord would return in their lifetime.
3. The mistranslation of certain key texts by which Pre-millenialism is "proved". For instance, in Matthew 24, the apostles ask this:
Mt 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
The word interpreted "world" in this verse is "aion", and is mistranslated. It means "age". The apostles were asking about the end of the age, not of the destruction of this sphere we live upon. Matthew 24 is the response to them, and if you look at the question, you will see that they are asking when the Temple will be destroyed, when His coming will be, and when the end of the age takes place? All happened simultaneously, and as such, Christ's answer in Matthew 24 answers as if they are one happening.
4. The destruction of Jerusalem and the events which took place describe the curses of covenant breaking found in Deut. 28. The Hebrew nation was given one final chance to submit to the rule of Messiah and get on board with God's plan. They failed. Matthew 21: 33 - 46 notes this and in this parable, Jesus states that the kingdom (vineyard) will be taken from the wicked husbandmen (Jews) who kill the son of the owner (Jesus) and given to another nation (the Church). No mention is made in this parable of God restoring the Jews back to the vineyard. They are done -- period.
5. YOM KIPPUR. Jesus fulfilled all the ceremonial rites which pointed to Him. He is the Passover Lamb for instance. In Hebrews 9 and 10, we see Jesus ministering in Heaven in the "temple made without hands". In the context of these chapters, it is comparing Him as the Great High Priest and the perfection of His priesthood with the earthly high priests.
If you understand YOM KIPPUR, you know that the sacrifice was not considered officially accepted by God UNTIL the high priest came back down the steps of the Temple. He returned to the place from where he had ascended into the Temple and the Holy of Holies. Therefore, keeping with the parallelism between type and antetype, IF Jesus, as the Great High Priest, has not returned from where He ascended into the "temple made without hands", then His sacrifice is not finished and we are still in our sins.
And there is so much more, but since He has returned, the New Covenant is manifest, the Eucharist is the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, and we are in the kingdom.
"Hallelujah!
For our Lord God Almighty reigns.
Let us rejoice and be glad
and give him glory!
For the wedding of the Lamb has come,
and his bride has made herself ready.
Fine linen, bright and clean,
was given her to wear."
(Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.)
Hmmmmmmm....the righteous acts of the saints? That is a VERY CATHOLIC THOUGHT!! Of course, let me hasten to add that we know that our righteous acts are BECAUSE of the indwelling Holy Spirit and not of our own selves in any way!!
So, we aren't married until Jesus returns for us...
We are indeed betrothed. The sudden appearing of the father to take the bride to the son seems to me to correspond to death, which is for us, since we do not know the future, a complete surprise.
It was the obedience and faith that made the difference, not that the one who went ingested some mystically special substances that the other didn't ingest.
You have my agreement in the issue of faith. Without proper faith, the reception of the Eucharist is not a blessing, but a curse, according to St. Paul in Corinthians. No one is saying that the Eucharist is some sort of "magical potion" of a kind. There MUST be faith. Without faith, partaking avails nothing.
Anyway do you think that the elements really change their physical composition?
I am convinced of it by conscience. It was this conviction which led me to further study the Catholic Faith and eventually join the Church. The conviction of the change preceeded my belonging to the Church, not the other way around.
But, physical can't beget spiritual.
Ohhhhhh, be careful here!! Was Jesus God? Was there any part of His Body which was not God at any time? Was He therefore both spiritual and physical at the same time? Remember the hypostatic union?
Even more to the point, was the food in the Garden merely physical food before the Fall? I would think differently. The whole point of Christ's coming was to rejoin the physical and the spiritual worlds so that no separation remains. The effect of the Fall HAS been reversed, and it is outworking itself in time into all eternity. Therefore, because of the Incarnation, physical and spiritual can meet together again.
quote:
The exercise of faith is what makes us more righteous, because Romans says that faith is righteousness.
I would not necessarily argue with this. My only question would be why cannot the partaking of the Eucharist be part of this?
Cordially in Christ,
Brother Ed
I also appreciate your thoughtful responses.
I try to remain respectful and gracious although I don't always succeed at it. I don't see that getting angry or rude does anything but distract and detract from substantive discussion and besides, I think it's not pleasing to God to behave that way.
I have the distinct feeling that your husband has a gem for a wife, as your children also have a gem for a Mommy.
Re: marriage imagery - I agree on the value of it; I've done some study of it myself. However you are using the imagery of marriage consummation - the physical relationship - and my understanding is that we aren't married yet - we are only 'betrothed' - because Rev 19:6-9 speaks of the wedding supper as an event which comes after Jesus' return for His prospective bride:
Food for thought: I realize that what I am about to say will be highly disagreed with, having come from a similar eschatological background myself.
I believe that the Lord returned in AD 70, which is the "Preterist" view of Eschatology. There are several reasons which compell me to take this view:
1. The "time indicators" of Scripture. Our Lord said in Matthew 16:28 that His return would take place before all who were present there listening to Him died. He speaks to John in the Revelation that His return is "soon" "at hand" and "near". The tense of all these words is imperative, indicating an urgency in their completion, rather than a wait of 2000+ years.
2. So clear seemed this fact to St. Paul and others who wrote the epistles which are in the Bible that we see references to their expectation that the Lord would return in their lifetime.
3. The mistranslation of certain key texts by which Pre-millenialism is "proved". For instance, in Matthew 24, the apostles ask this:
Mt 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
The word interpreted "world" in this verse is "aion", and is mistranslated. It means "age". The apostles were asking about the end of the age, not of the destruction of this sphere we live upon. Matthew 24 is the response to them, and if you look at the question, you will see that they are asking when the Temple will be destroyed, when His coming will be, and when the end of the age takes place? All happened simultaneously, and as such, Christ's answer in Matthew 24 answers as if they are one happening.
4. The destruction of Jerusalem and the events which took place describe the curses of covenant breaking found in Deut. 28. The Hebrew nation was given one final chance to submit to the rule of Messiah and get on board with God's plan. They failed. Matthew 21: 33 - 46 notes this and in this parable, Jesus states that the kingdom (vineyard) will be taken from the wicked husbandmen (Jews) who kill the son of the owner (Jesus) and given to another nation (the Church). No mention is made in this parable of God restoring the Jews back to the vineyard. They are done -- period.
5. YOM KIPPUR. Jesus fulfilled all the ceremonial rites which pointed to Him. He is the Passover Lamb for instance. In Hebrews 9 and 10, we see Jesus ministering in Heaven in the "temple made without hands". In the context of these chapters, it is comparing Him as the Great High Priest and the perfection of His priesthood with the earthly high priests.
If you understand YOM KIPPUR, you know that the sacrifice was not considered officially accepted by God UNTIL the high priest came back down the steps of the Temple. He returned to the place from where he had ascended into the Temple and the Holy of Holies. Therefore, keeping with the parallelism between type and antetype, IF Jesus, as the Great High Priest, has not returned from where He ascended into the "temple made without hands", then His sacrifice is not finished and we are still in our sins.
And there is so much more, but since He has returned, the New Covenant is manifest, the Eucharist is the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, and we are in the kingdom.
"Hallelujah!
For our Lord God Almighty reigns.
Let us rejoice and be glad
and give him glory!
For the wedding of the Lamb has come,
and his bride has made herself ready.
Fine linen, bright and clean,
was given her to wear."
(Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.)
Hmmmmmmm....the righteous acts of the saints? That is a VERY CATHOLIC THOUGHT!! Of course, let me hasten to add that we know that our righteous acts are BECAUSE of the indwelling Holy Spirit and not of our own selves in any way!!
So, we aren't married until Jesus returns for us...
We are indeed betrothed. The sudden appearing of the father to take the bride to the son seems to me to correspond to death, which is for us, since we do not know the future, a complete surprise.
It was the obedience and faith that made the difference, not that the one who went ingested some mystically special substances that the other didn't ingest.
You have my agreement in the issue of faith. Without proper faith, the reception of the Eucharist is not a blessing, but a curse, according to St. Paul in Corinthians. No one is saying that the Eucharist is some sort of "magical potion" of a kind. There MUST be faith. Without faith, partaking avails nothing.
Anyway do you think that the elements really change their physical composition?
I am convinced of it by conscience. It was this conviction which led me to further study the Catholic Faith and eventually join the Church. The conviction of the change preceeded my belonging to the Church, not the other way around.
But, physical can't beget spiritual.
Ohhhhhh, be careful here!! Was Jesus God? Was there any part of His Body which was not God at any time? Was He therefore both spiritual and physical at the same time? Remember the hypostatic union?
Even more to the point, was the food in the Garden merely physical food before the Fall? I would think differently. The whole point of Christ's coming was to rejoin the physical and the spiritual worlds so that no separation remains. The effect of the Fall HAS been reversed, and it is outworking itself in time into all eternity. Therefore, because of the Incarnation, physical and spiritual can meet together again.
quote:
The exercise of faith is what makes us more righteous, because Romans says that faith is righteousness.
I would not necessarily argue with this. My only question would be why cannot the partaking of the Eucharist be part of this?
Cordially in Christ,
Brother Ed
It's kind of you to say so but those who are with me 24/7 know my failings all too well!
Ok, so you're a preterist. That didn't occur to me. Thanks for explaining.
Yes - that's why I don't think it's worth me spending a lot of time on eschatology - because I think the key lessons are to be ready since we don't know when Jesus will return and it will be soon. But the lessons are the same if we are to die before then.
I respect your conviction.
I think it was merely physical; I think that it was Adam and Eve's disobedience that caused 'the fall' and all its effects, not the foodstuff they ate per se.
Nicely worded
Good, because you said it!
I was quoting you!It can and I tried to say that in my last post - except I avoid using the word 'righteousness' as you do. But I don't think it happens through the elements in the way you do. I think it's God's response to our faithful obedience.
in Jesus' love
Helen (AITB)
Bible-belted
New Member
DocCas,
There is ample evidence for a belief n the Real Presence of Christ in the Supper in early Christianity.
What is absent, and this is where trying goes wrong, is a belief that Real Presence is to be equated with physical presence. What Trying does is confuse the patistic belief regarding Real Presence with the later view, beginning with Radbertus, of transsubstantiation.
You can find evidence for a "realism" in the view of some ECFs (like Augustine for example, though he was not consistenmt) but even that realism had nothing to do with physical presence.
In tterms of john 6 even RCs don't take Jesus literally. If they did then they would be advocating cannablism. Instead they maintain that Jesus was referring to His "literal" body found in the lements of the sacrament. Of course to say that is to say that Jesus is not to be taken literally in John 6! There is an equivocation over the meaning of "literal". Protetsants and Catholics simply disagree about the controlling metaphor. But there is no question that Jesus was making a metaphor. RCs insist on interpreting John 6 in light of later events in the Supper, whereas Protestants, rightly, iunterpret John 6 in its own context. There Jesus tells us what eating and drinking mean, coming and believing (Jn. 6:35).
There is ample evidence for a belief n the Real Presence of Christ in the Supper in early Christianity.
What is absent, and this is where trying goes wrong, is a belief that Real Presence is to be equated with physical presence. What Trying does is confuse the patistic belief regarding Real Presence with the later view, beginning with Radbertus, of transsubstantiation.
You can find evidence for a "realism" in the view of some ECFs (like Augustine for example, though he was not consistenmt) but even that realism had nothing to do with physical presence.
In tterms of john 6 even RCs don't take Jesus literally. If they did then they would be advocating cannablism. Instead they maintain that Jesus was referring to His "literal" body found in the lements of the sacrament. Of course to say that is to say that Jesus is not to be taken literally in John 6! There is an equivocation over the meaning of "literal". Protetsants and Catholics simply disagree about the controlling metaphor. But there is no question that Jesus was making a metaphor. RCs insist on interpreting John 6 in light of later events in the Supper, whereas Protestants, rightly, iunterpret John 6 in its own context. There Jesus tells us what eating and drinking mean, coming and believing (Jn. 6:35).
What I find funny about this debate is that the same people arguing over the definition of "is" are probably the same people who ridiculed Clinton for saying that it depends on your definition of "is" is.
I also find that many people focus on the accounts in the gospels and forget about 1 Cor 11. When taken together I find it very hard to believe that it is meant metaphorically.
I also find that many people focus on the accounts in the gospels and forget about 1 Cor 11. When taken together I find it very hard to believe that it is meant metaphorically.
trying2understand
New Member
You got that right.
"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour,having been made flesh and blood for our salvation,so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word,and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished,is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."
Justin Martyr,First Apology,66(A.D. 110-165),
"He acknowledged the cup as his own blood,from which he bedews our blood; and the bread he affirmed to be his own body,from which he gives increase to our bodies."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,V:2,2(c.A.D. 200),
"Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine." "
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,XXII:8(c.A.D. 350),
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible."
circa 110 A.D.: St. Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Romans 7,3
Your conclusions are faulty though. Perhaps you should give it a little more thought.
Now there is an interesting approach. Since I have provided you with historical evidence that Christians believed that the bread and wine in the Eucharist become the Body and Blood of our Lord, perhaps you could show historical evidence that others thought that was "cannabalism".
After all cannabalism would have been offensive to those who would deny "Real Presence" so they would have written against it. No?
You seem to be avoiding my original question, "When was the Real Presence first denied?"
Bible-belted
New Member
Trying,
"You got that right."
Of course I do.
"Your conclusions are faulty though. Perhaps you should give it a little more thought."
I've researched it thoroughly. It is generally held that transsubstantiation was a creation of Radbertus, and it was denied in his time.
"Since I have provided you with historical evidence that Christians believed that the bread and wine in the Eucharist become the Body and Blood of our Lord, perhaps you could show historical evidence that others thought that was "cannabalism"."
A good chunk of apologetic was based on denying cannabalism. See Theophilus for one. There are others. But you have not proven that the Fathers taught transsubstantiation. You have proven they believed in a Real Presence. These two are not the same thing. You are simply reading in ideas of a later time into the fathers' wiritings, and then aserting that they pove your vbiew. A noice circle, but fallacious.
"You got that right."
Of course I do.
"Your conclusions are faulty though. Perhaps you should give it a little more thought."
I've researched it thoroughly. It is generally held that transsubstantiation was a creation of Radbertus, and it was denied in his time.
"Since I have provided you with historical evidence that Christians believed that the bread and wine in the Eucharist become the Body and Blood of our Lord, perhaps you could show historical evidence that others thought that was "cannabalism"."
A good chunk of apologetic was based on denying cannabalism. See Theophilus for one. There are others. But you have not proven that the Fathers taught transsubstantiation. You have proven they believed in a Real Presence. These two are not the same thing. You are simply reading in ideas of a later time into the fathers' wiritings, and then aserting that they pove your vbiew. A noice circle, but fallacious.
Bible-belted
New Member
BTW trying,
I don't know that Real Presence is denied at all. I know that Zwinglu often hads some nasty things to say about it, but I also know that he affirmed a real spiritual presence as well. Reofrmed and Luteran also hold to a Real Presence.
I think though that it would be helpful for you (since you are confused on te topic) to actually research Real Presence to see what the ECFs meant by that, and only then ask when it was denied. The answer will surprise you I am sure.
I don't know that Real Presence is denied at all. I know that Zwinglu often hads some nasty things to say about it, but I also know that he affirmed a real spiritual presence as well. Reofrmed and Luteran also hold to a Real Presence.
I think though that it would be helpful for you (since you are confused on te topic) to actually research Real Presence to see what the ECFs meant by that, and only then ask when it was denied. The answer will surprise you I am sure.
trying2understand
New Member
Perhaps you could advance the discussion, by explaining the difference between Real Presence and transubstantiation, as you understand it.
Bible-belted
New Member
Perhaps you could advance the discussion, by explaining the difference between Real Presence and transubstantiation, as you understand it.</font>[/QUOTE]In simple terms, thre Real Presence is a fact. Christ is truly present. That is Real Presence. Transsubstantiation by contrast is a way of explaining HOW Christ is really present.
Nowadays most RCs speak of real Presence as if it wre interchangeable with Transsubstantiation. That isn't true, as it was not at first (that is why folks like Mark Shea can actually trace the development of the doctrine in RCism).
Of course you would say that the RC development is the true one. That's your opinion. I don't share it.
trying2understand
New Member
Not just nowadays, as you say. Why do you ignore the evidence as offered below?
"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour,having been made flesh and blood for our salvation,so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word,and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh ."
Justin Martyr,First Apology,66(A.D. 110-165),
"He acknowledged the cup as his own blood,from which he bedews our blood; and the bread he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,V:2,2(c.A.D. 200),
"Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine." "
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,XXII:8(c.A.D. 350),
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ , who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible."
circa 110 A.D.: St. Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Romans 7,3
Bible-belted
New Member
I havenb't ignored that evidence. As I say though, it is evidence of Real Presence, not Transsubstantiation.
You're still doing your little circular fallacy.
Transsubstantiation is a means of explaining how Jesus is Really present. But that explanation post dates the people you quote.
You still have not proven anythingother than that the Fathers taught Real Presence. You just want to assume that Real Presence means Transsubsantiation, evn though as afact of history, transsubstantiation post dayes Real presence by centuries.
Begged definitions won't get you anywhere.
You're still doing your little circular fallacy.
Transsubstantiation is a means of explaining how Jesus is Really present. But that explanation post dates the people you quote.
You still have not proven anythingother than that the Fathers taught Real Presence. You just want to assume that Real Presence means Transsubsantiation, evn though as afact of history, transsubstantiation post dayes Real presence by centuries.
Begged definitions won't get you anywhere.
trying2understand
New Member
So then, you believe that the bread becomes Christ's flesh and the wine becomes Christ's blood?
"...so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word,and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh ."
Justin Martyr,First Apology,66(A.D. 110-165),
[ September 03, 2002, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hello everyone,
The designation, "Real Presence," is not an ooey-gooey feel good phrase that describes a presence that is foreign to the substantial presence of the God-man under the appearances of bread and wine.
Even a survey reading of the Fathers demonstrates this, so what I encourage the confused to do is: pick up and read the Fathers for yourselves.
E.g. - Justin Martyr (A.D. 110 to 165)
"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word,and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology 66)
and E.g. Hilary of Poitiers -
"The words in which we speak of the things of God must be used in no mere human and worldly sense, nor must the perverseness of an alien and impious interpretation be extorted from the soundness of heavenly words by any violent and headstrong preaching. Let us read what is written, let us understand what we read, and then fulfil the demands of a perfect faith. For as to what we say concerning the reality of Christ's nature within us, unless we have been taught by Him, our words are foolish and impious. For He says Himself, My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in him. As to the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now both from the declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. And these when eaten and drunk, bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and Christ in us. Is not this true? Yet they who affirm that Christ Jesus is not truly God are welcome to find it false. He therefore Himself is in us through the flesh and we in Him, whilst together with Him our own selves are in God." (On the Trinity 8:14)
It is wise and prudent (i.e. Latreia) not to speak of those whom you have not read and those whom you do not understand, lest you make fools of yourselves.
Our faith does not rest in the formulas of doctrine but in the realities that doctrine points to as a sign of. Transubstantiation is a formula that, in the mind of High Scholasticism, scientifically formulates the reality that has been held in such high esteem from the beginning.. a reality denied by self-professing Christians left and right in our age.
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,
Carson
[ September 03, 2002, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
The designation, "Real Presence," is not an ooey-gooey feel good phrase that describes a presence that is foreign to the substantial presence of the God-man under the appearances of bread and wine.
Even a survey reading of the Fathers demonstrates this, so what I encourage the confused to do is: pick up and read the Fathers for yourselves.
E.g. - Justin Martyr (A.D. 110 to 165)
"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word,and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology 66)
and E.g. Hilary of Poitiers -
"The words in which we speak of the things of God must be used in no mere human and worldly sense, nor must the perverseness of an alien and impious interpretation be extorted from the soundness of heavenly words by any violent and headstrong preaching. Let us read what is written, let us understand what we read, and then fulfil the demands of a perfect faith. For as to what we say concerning the reality of Christ's nature within us, unless we have been taught by Him, our words are foolish and impious. For He says Himself, My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in him. As to the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now both from the declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. And these when eaten and drunk, bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and Christ in us. Is not this true? Yet they who affirm that Christ Jesus is not truly God are welcome to find it false. He therefore Himself is in us through the flesh and we in Him, whilst together with Him our own selves are in God." (On the Trinity 8:14)
It is wise and prudent (i.e. Latreia) not to speak of those whom you have not read and those whom you do not understand, lest you make fools of yourselves.
Our faith does not rest in the formulas of doctrine but in the realities that doctrine points to as a sign of. Transubstantiation is a formula that, in the mind of High Scholasticism, scientifically formulates the reality that has been held in such high esteem from the beginning.. a reality denied by self-professing Christians left and right in our age.
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,
Carson
[ September 03, 2002, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
trans = to change
substance = essential nature
transubstantiation = the changing of the essential nature (Cf. Justin & Hilary above)
[ September 03, 2002, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
substance = essential nature
transubstantiation = the changing of the essential nature (Cf. Justin & Hilary above)
[ September 03, 2002, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
Carson, I don't see why Jesus' literal human flesh and blood would have been different from any other human flesh and blood. So I don't understand how eating his flesh and drinking human blood would confer spiritual benefits upon us that we wouldn't get from anyone else's flesh and blood.
Can you explain it to me?
I respect your beliefs but I don't get it in the same way as I don't get how touching the TV when some famous televangelist is on, is going to bring about some miraculous healing for me, say.
I put them both in the category of, it doesn't make any sense to me based on what I know of the Bible and Christian/Biblical principles in general, that God would work that way.
Now, I'm not saying there's necessarily anything evil about believing you are eating Jesus' flesh and blood literally. Raising expecations about healing, I think are much more fraught, for example, because you can really hurt someone's faith by telling them God will work such and such a way, then He doesn't (being God, it's really up to Him how He works...
). It's not as if any specific expectations are raised by Communion doctrines. However, like I said, I just don't get why God would work through the literal flesh and blood of Jesus to impart spiritual benefits. Any more than He'd make Jesus into a literal gate because John 10 says he is the gate, etc.
AITB
Can you explain it to me?
I respect your beliefs but I don't get it in the same way as I don't get how touching the TV when some famous televangelist is on, is going to bring about some miraculous healing for me, say.
I put them both in the category of, it doesn't make any sense to me based on what I know of the Bible and Christian/Biblical principles in general, that God would work that way.
Now, I'm not saying there's necessarily anything evil about believing you are eating Jesus' flesh and blood literally. Raising expecations about healing, I think are much more fraught, for example, because you can really hurt someone's faith by telling them God will work such and such a way, then He doesn't (being God, it's really up to Him how He works...
AITB
GraceSaves
New Member
Jesus is 100% God and 100% man, and the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ that is consumed is his actual body and blood, SOUL AND DIVINITY. Jesus flesh and blood is much more than ours because of his dual nature. It is the body and blood of the Son of the Living God.
trying2understand
New Member
The Old Covenant was sealed with the Passover meal. The Jews smeared their doors with the blood of the Pascal Lamb and then they ate the sacrifical lamb.
Christ is the new Pascal Lamb. Just as the Pascal Lamb was the sacrificial victim whose death marks the establishment of the old covenant, so Jesus is the lamb of God whose death atones for sin and seals the new covenant.
The celebration meal of the new covenant is the eucharist, at which we eat bread and drink wine which have been made, by God, the Flesh and Blood of the Pascal Lamb.
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi AITB,
Your honest question is a breath of fresh air. I'd be more than happy to answer it for you.
You asked, "Carson, I don't see why Jesus' literal human flesh and blood would have been different from any other human flesh and blood. So I don't understand how eating his flesh and drinking human blood would confer spiritual benefits upon us that we wouldn't get from anyone else's flesh and blood. Can you explain it to me?"
Jesus, as the God-man, has two natures that are hypostatically united to one another. In this way, his flesh, blood, and soul are the instruments through which his divinity is made manifest for the salvation of the human race.
For this reason, Jesus' death upon the cross was able to do something that no other human death on a cross could do: win our redemption from sin and slavery to the Devil.
In the same way, his body and blood, united to his soul (this unification occurred at Jesus' resurrection) are the instruments whereby God is able to give us the gift of his divinity, so that we may become partakers in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).
In the Eucharist, we receive a sacrament. A sacrament is an outward sign that signifies and conveys the grace of which it signifies. The bread and wine are both sign/symbol of Christ's body and blood as well as the actual Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.
So, when we receive the Eucharist, we receive Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Saviour, uniting ourselves to him substantially. This gives us the life of God - his divinity - which is what we call sanctifying grace and allows us to grow in sanctification/holiness in the Christian life - if we have faith.
This is how Jesus is able to say in John 6, "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life" Eternal life is one aspect of Divinity, which we receive in the Eucharist.
The question that follows is: why does God do this? Why sacraments? Well, to give a simple answer: because we're creatures composed of body and soul. God works with us according to our composition - to nurture and sustain us where we are.. to touch us and heal us of sin.
God bless,
Carson Weber
[ September 03, 2002, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
Your honest question is a breath of fresh air. I'd be more than happy to answer it for you.
You asked, "Carson, I don't see why Jesus' literal human flesh and blood would have been different from any other human flesh and blood. So I don't understand how eating his flesh and drinking human blood would confer spiritual benefits upon us that we wouldn't get from anyone else's flesh and blood. Can you explain it to me?"
Jesus, as the God-man, has two natures that are hypostatically united to one another. In this way, his flesh, blood, and soul are the instruments through which his divinity is made manifest for the salvation of the human race.
For this reason, Jesus' death upon the cross was able to do something that no other human death on a cross could do: win our redemption from sin and slavery to the Devil.
In the same way, his body and blood, united to his soul (this unification occurred at Jesus' resurrection) are the instruments whereby God is able to give us the gift of his divinity, so that we may become partakers in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).
In the Eucharist, we receive a sacrament. A sacrament is an outward sign that signifies and conveys the grace of which it signifies. The bread and wine are both sign/symbol of Christ's body and blood as well as the actual Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.
So, when we receive the Eucharist, we receive Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Saviour, uniting ourselves to him substantially. This gives us the life of God - his divinity - which is what we call sanctifying grace and allows us to grow in sanctification/holiness in the Christian life - if we have faith.
This is how Jesus is able to say in John 6, "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life" Eternal life is one aspect of Divinity, which we receive in the Eucharist.
The question that follows is: why does God do this? Why sacraments? Well, to give a simple answer: because we're creatures composed of body and soul. God works with us according to our composition - to nurture and sustain us where we are.. to touch us and heal us of sin.
God bless,
Carson Weber
[ September 03, 2002, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]