Replies

Denial of Christ's clear words and misinterpration is sadly continuing what the pagans did in the days of the Early Christians

the Earliest Christians also said any consideration of this as just a metaphor was false -- Ignature of Antioch (disciple of Apotle John) wrote in AD 110 wrote about heretics who bstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Letter to the SMyrnaens).

The earliest Christians beleived this to be the ACTUAL body of Christ. Why, they were also accused by pagans of being cannibals and Justin MArtyr had to write a defence to the Emperor saying "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

in view of this overwhelming evidence from scripture and supplemented by the practise and belief of the earliest Christians, we can only say that there IS a real presence in the Eucharist.

Martin Luther too believed it -- he said that Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. --> only Calvin/Zwingli turned around what Christ had said. Lutherans, Orthodox, Catholics, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians all believe in the True Presence.

1Cor 11:23-26 also explains the fallacy of transubstantiation.

John 6:26-69 well describes it. If transubstantiation were sound doctrine, there would have been no reference to the manna as being insufficient for life, for it also could have served that role.

On the contrary, we take of His body, the bread of life, or flesh, which God the Father provided, the living bread which came down from Heaven, then we have eternal life.

If we drink of the cup, His blood, i.e. His saving work on the Cross of His death, then we also have fellowship with Him.

As often as we eat or intake Him, we also are to do these things in remembrance of Him. 1stJohn 1:9 follows easily and matches well with the Eucharist.

Obviously to those whom the Father has drawn to the Son, it isn’t the physical consumption without the spiritual metaphor which saves, as the references to the manna and Paul’s admonition of those consuming the Eucharist because they were physically hungry, but now some were sickly (1Cor 11:30)