The Eucharist: Is the Real Presence Biblical?

The "Real Presence" of Jesus in the Eucharist is rooted in Christ's own teachings.

When Jesus taught about the Eucharist, he spoke with a profound realism. At the Last Supper, he didn't say, "This is a symbol of my body." He said, "This is my body…" And when he gave his most in-depth teaching on the Eucharist, he spoke in a very realistic way — in a way that makes clear that the Eucharist is not just a symbol of Jesus, but is his flesh and blood made sacramentally present.

Let's enter into that dramatic scene, known as "The Bread of Life Discourse" in John's Gospel chapter six. Jesus had just performed his greatest miracle so far, multiplying loaves and fish to feed 5,000 people. The crowds are in awe. They declare him to be the great "prophet who is to come" and want to carry him off to make him king (John 6:14-15).

But the very next day, Jesus says something that sends his public approval ratings plummeting, something that makes those same raving fans now oppose him. Even some of his own disciples will walk away from him. What does Jesus say that was so controversial? He taught about partaking of his body and blood in the Eucharist. Jesus first says, "I am the bread of life…the true bread come down from heaven" (John 6:35). And he makes clear that he is not bread in some vague, figurative sense. He concludes, "…and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh" (John 6:51).

The people are shocked at this. They say, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (John 6:52).

The Jews listening that day don't take Jesus as speaking metaphorically, as if we are to somehow only symbolically eat of his flesh. They understand Jesus very well. They know he is speaking realistically here, and that's why they are appalled.

Now here's the key: Jesus has every opportunity to clarify his teaching. But notice how that's precisely what he doesn't do. He doesn't back up and say, "Oh wait…I'm sorry…You misunderstood. I was only speaking metaphorically here!" He doesn't soften his teaching, saying "You just need to nourish yourself on my teaching, my wisdom, my love." Jesus does just the opposite. He uses even more graphic, more intense language to drive his point home: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53). And he goes on to underscore how essential partaking of his body and blood is for our salvation.

"He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (6:54-55).

In fact, Jesus now uses a word for "eat" that has even greater graphic intensity — trogein, which means to chew or gnaw — not a word that would be used figuratively here!

This is not the language of someone speaking metaphorically. Jesus wants to give us his very body and blood in the Eucharist. In fact, Jesus now uses a word for "eat" that has even greater graphic intensity — trogein, which means to chew or gnaw — not a word that would be used figuratively here!

So challenging is this teaching that even many of Christ's disciples are bewildered, saying "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" (John 6:60). Indeed, Christ's words on the Eucharist were too much for some of them to believe. Many of his disciples rejected Jesus over this teaching and left him (John 6:66). And Jesus let them go. He didn't chase after them, saying, "Wait! You misunderstood me." They understood quite well that Jesus was speaking about eating his flesh and blood, and they rejected this teaching. That's why Jesus let them go.

So it's clear that Jesus wants to give us his Body and Blood in the Eucharist. But we still must ask, why? In the Jewish, Biblical worldview of Jesus' day, the body is an expression of the whole person and the life is in the blood. So by giving us his Body and Blood in the Eucharist, Jesus is giving his very life to us, and he wants to unite himself to us in the most intimate way possible. He wants to fill us with his life and heal us of our wounds, strengthen us in his love change us to become more and more like him. That's the life-transforming power of the Eucharist in our lives. In Holy Communion, we have the most profound union with Our Lord Jesus Christ that we can have here on earth.

And I'm still relying solely on what Jesus and the apostles taught. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to inspire the apostles to remember what He taught. God promise He would preserve His word for all generations. We can be assured that He did just that. We can be assured that the apostles wrote what God wanted them to write. We can be assured that God preserved that word for all generations.

Catholics claim they have oral tradition and additional revelation. Mormons claim they have revelation and teaching of angels. Muslims have their prophet. Every on of them is based on fallible men who perpetrated evil deeds. We can look at the wicked popes, Joseph Smith, and Mohammed to see.

The Old Testament oracles were given to the Jews. Catholics added to what those Jews held as scripture. Nothing was "taken out" later from those oracles by Protestants. They simply rejected what the Catholics had added and returned to the scriptures God had given to the Jews. The New Covenant information was given to the apostles. They each considered the others writings scripture. The Old Testament God entrusted to the Jews and the New Testament given to the apostles is scripture.

Mormons added the words of their "prophets from God". Muslims have their "prophet Mohammed. Catholics have the "petrine authority" and their sometimes "infallible pope" and their "revelations". The pope claims he's "vicar of Christ". David Koresh claimed he was "final prophet" of Jesus Christ. Sun Myung Moon claimed to be the second coming of Christ. Krishna Venta claimed to be "Christ on earth".

You want to keep bringing up all those names? It's not the Protestants who have similarities to them. It's the Catholics. Believe any one of those self proclaimed "christ on earth" fakes if you want Steelfish. I'm with the oracles entrusted to the Jews and the apostles Christ personally chose for the true word of God. Put your faith in any one of those "vicars of Christ" if you want but I put my faith in Christ alone.

Your first sentence is a stopper, “relying on what Jesus and the apostles taught.”
But it is the Catholic Church that infallibly assembled the canonical texts and told you what Jesus taught. Instead, you take upon yourself this “infallible” authority given only to the Church under Petrine authority to tell us what is true and what is false according to “you.”

What you don’t seem to understand is that the Moonies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc, David Koresh etc all think that what “you” interpret is false.

This is why Christ made sure that there is only ONE truth by entrusting this to His ONE Church. This is the Church of saints, martyrs, stigmatists and the Church of the early Fathers. You cannot rebut this. Since lf you dispute the infallibility of the Church in selecting what books should be excluded and what should be included in the canonical texts, then you may be relying on faulty information.

This is why after a lifetime of study eminent Protestant theologians who set out to prove Catholicism wrong ended being converted to the Catholicism.

>>But it is the Catholic Church that infallibly assembled the canonical texts and told you what Jesus taught.<<

That doesn't work like you seem to want it to Steelfish. It was the Jews which were entrusted with the oracles of God. Which for sure covers the Old Testament and also which did NOT include that apocrypha. So right there we have the Catholic Church adding to the words entrusted to the Jews by God. Then you have the problem with what was considered scripture by the apostles themselves. Not only did Jesus choose the apostles but told them the Holy Spirit would help them remember what He had taught "while He was with them.

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament was considered scripture long before the Catholic Church declared what they considered scripture which included books that were not considered scripture by those entrusted by God with what scripture was.

Bragging about the Catholic Church bringing us scripture is like bragging that Pontius Pilot brought us salvation. God used many evil men and groups of men to advance His will throughout History. Being one of them in no way guarantees current correctness.

This is not a question about bragging. It has everything to do with authoritative interpretation. The process took some 300 or more years after the death of Christ in which the Bible books were assembled. Just as not all the writings that predated Christ were incorporated into the Bible, not all the writings since the death of Christ were authenticated as the “Word of God.”

In short, the Church existed BEFORE the Bible texts were authenticated as the true Word of God. This infallible authority is not a stop-and-go authority.

How many times does it need pointing out to you the text of John 21: 25

“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”

Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes,

“[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

The Church is the repository of this oral tradition, customs and rituals. This is why we have an infallible Petrine authority that even the “gates of hell” shall not prevail against. The Church, like the mustard tree, has grown its branches to every corner of the world. The Church that draws unto itself saints, martys, stigmatists and repentant sinners, like St. Augustine. This is the Church that brings in scholars and peasants.

Go spend some serious time on reading the works of some of the pre-eminent Lutheran scholars, like the late Rev. Richard Neuhaus who converted to Catholicism and founded the publication “First Things.”

At the tome of his conversion, Nehaus wrote:

“I have long believed that the Roman Catholic Church is the fullest expression of the church of Christ through time.”

Or, read the brilliant theological book by Benedict XVI, “Jesus, The Apostles, and the Early Church.”

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Apostles-Early-Church-Benedict/dp/1586172204

Ulf Ekman, the founder of Scandinavia’s biggest Bible school, with a congregation of some 4000 individuals, converted to Catholicism because his theological inquiry confirmed for him the indispensability of the Catholic sacraments.

Francis J. Beckwith, a “born-again” evangelical, a tenured professor at Baptist-affiliated Baylor University in Waco, Tex, was the president of the Evangelical Theological Society an association of 4,300 Protestant theologians, teachers, and authors of Biblical books who resigned and joined the Catholic Church. Since his exit, others have followed him.

At the end of day, say all you want, there is ONE truth Church. It can’t be otherwise.

>>It has everything to do with authoritative interpretation.<<

That is complete nonsense. We are told who "authoritative interpretation" was given to and who it is that does teaching.

1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

When on truly longs for God's truth and studies scripture the Holy Spirit will reveal what it means. Studying in context with all of scripture taken into account with ernest prayer will cause the Holy Spirit to reveal what scripture means. The Catholic Church injecting itself between God and those who would know God's truth is Satanic.

>>How many times does it need pointing out to you the text of John 21:25<<

How many times do you need to be told that simply because not all that Jesus did or said was included we should feel free to surmise other things He did or said? >>Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes,<<

I have no idea why you think that by identifying someone as a "Protestant" that it means something to me or probably any one else here for that matter. IT DOES NOT. The Catholic obsession with "group identity" is carnal adolescence. It's positively lemming like.

>>The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . .<<

Anyone who thinks a story stays the same through generations of story telling is naive at best and certainly not to be trusted for truth of history.

>>The Church is the repository of this oral tradition, customs and rituals.<<

Sure it is Steelfish. Because the Holy Spirit couldn't do His job adequately right? God told Moses to write down what He told him because the Catholic Church wasn't around yet right?

>>Go spend some serious time on reading the works of some of the pre-eminent Lutheran scholars, like the late Rev. Richard Neuhaus who converted to Catholicism<<

There you go with that lemming thing again.

>>Francis J. Beckwith, a “born-again” evangelical,<<

ROFL!!! LEMMING

This is where your analysis self-destructs:
“When one longs for God’s truth and studies scripture the Holy Spirit will reveal what it means.”

Go tell that to the Moonies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, David Koreshs’, Jim Jones; and all those mainline Protestant denominations who “long for God’s truth” and who now can justify gay and lesbian ordinations of their pastors.

The Holy Spirit was sent down to Peter and his successors establishing a single Church to “go forth and teach” and this is the teaching of ONE truth with an infallible authority. By your analysis every person can crack open the pages of the Bible, pray to the Holy Spirit, and God’s message is self-revealing even if it reveals multiple “truths” to each of a variety of readers.

It has been said that if you put 100 Bible Christians in a room and provide them each with pencil and notepad and have them interpret a section of scripture, you will have 100 different explanations for their answers. Sorry, this is not what the Holy Spirit does.

OK. So I finally understood you.

You, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggart, Rev. Graham, Rev. Wright, the scoundrels at the corrupt AME Churches (who welcomed double murderer OJ with applause and cheers); Moonies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormons and every corner street foursquare church pastor can all purport to read all of scripture day and night invoking the guidance of the Holy Spirit and they can each authoritatively come to their “own” infallible interpretations. Each to his own and with many churches and interpretations as there are devout readers of scripture. Good luck!

So if there are four Protestant churches in the neighborhood, I go shopping from one to another until I feel this final one has “got” it until they one day change their former interpretations with the arrival of a new pastor, and then what? Go and form my little “First Emanuel” Congregation?

But alas, the One Church with a single CREDO and Catechism that was provided the infallible authority to decide what books exactly constitute scripture, the very “Word of God” is the one in the company of David Koresh etc. Wonderful logic!

Look, this sort of phrasing;

Just another former Catholic that doesn’t want to believe the words of God and puts his personal opinion above God and His Church.

is to attribute motive x2, with a little of the ol' mind-reading thing as a side-dish.

On the 'religion forum' portion of FreeRepublic, such things are strongly discouraged, for it has been recognized that those precise things inevitably lead to yet more "making it personal", resulting in all-out flamewars.

I would ask God to help you understand, but I understand that you have free will and will be

contarian to the teachings of Jesus...

I could say the very same thing for those who teach a corporeal flesh sort of interpretation --- which seemingly most of the time is what Roman Catholics on these pages do appear to be striving to continually re-assert, even upon those rare occasions when there was some confession that it is not "physical" flesh and blood which is quite literally eaten, as we know of such things as "flesh and blood" in an earthly way.

The "earthly" component to these discussions, was His own earthly life & physical flesh & blood body --- which He gave on the cross as payment for our sins.

The ones that left did not believe in the Real Presence, just like many former or non Catholics that keep insisting on their own personal opinion.

Real Presence??? That's Calvinistic talk regarding what Calvin termed pneumatic (spiritual) presence.

Is the spirit realm "real"? Yes, or no. Say it, answer yes, or answer no, the spirit realms are not "real".

Yet to Calvin and those other Reformers whom used that precise term "Real Presence" in speaking of just how the Lord could be truly present within the consecrated bread of communion, the spirit realms were as literally real as that which can be otherwise naturally perceived with the physical senses, and so under those provisos was the term invented, this coming about while they struggled to come up with the best wordings which would oppose a corporeal, carnal flesh view of how the bread is said to be "the body of Christ", denying that the bread be transformed into (literal) human flesh, yet hoping to explain how the Lord could be truly present, and even "be" the bread (and the wine).

The ones written of in Passover observance.

Continuance of transporting corporeal sense of Passover, to then applying in the same earthly and dull-minded letter-or-the-Law fashion as for present day observance and remembrance of His own bodily sacrifice, to what Christ was speaking of when He talked of "eating" His own flesh, is to fail to recall that He Himself existed long before He came to this earthly realm --- and that now, or shall we say at least after His own Resurrection, and 40 days later Ascension, did return back to the place He was before He was born in form and (literal) body as "a man" (human being).

Yet He was not merely "human being" in toto, for He even as He was fully man, was He not also -- fully God?

23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Does God have human form of "flesh and blood" in the heavenly realms in which He existed, even before there was made anything which was made? How could that be, being that He created Adam in His own image? Are we to assume that when the texts indicate "image" that it should be considered literally, as in God the Father having human form, red blood cells, Himself need to physically breath oxygen, and to eat food of some (actually physical) form in order to continue living? The answers to that are most likely "no", for if instead yes, that would also open the door too widely for viewing the Creator in the image of the fallen Adam, whether one were to be aware of that or, not...

Are we to consider that we should interpret (for example) the book of Genesis in a wooden, and word-for-word concretely literal way?

The RCC magesterium does no such thing, and neither do I. Do you?

This contention over the meaning of John 6 can be quite grievous, for in end result many do possibly miss out on encountering Him truly when they themselves partake of this meal, observed as thanksgiving & memorial, shared among those of us whom remain --- for reason that they reject the "corporeal flesh", carnal mind understanding which the RCC fell into having as seemingly their own, yet miss the Spirit in regards to what He meant when He was speaking of --- His own giving of His own corporeal flesh on the cross --- and then also when He was then speaking in the same phrases of the memorial meal, which itself was continuation and expansion upon Hebrew observance of the Passover.

Test question;

What answers would you give, what comes to mind when considering, in light of all the rest of the chapter, specifically John 6:62-63

What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

Every one of those men, if he is a Christian has the ability to understand the scriptures equally as well as anyone in your religion, including your popes...

And as sad as it is to say, every one of those men is far closer to the truth of scripture than any priest, bishop, cardinal or pope that your religion ever produced...

Oh yah...Your religion's catechism gives your religion infallible authority...And your catechism was written by your religion...HaHaHa...There were thousands if not millions of born again Christians wrought by the written words of God hundreds of years before your religion corrupted the bible with its own version...You think God let his adoption wander around in the wilderness for 400 years while He for your religion to figure it out???

Perhaps yours is the muzlim god...

People who rely on spiritual knowledge and guidance know far better than to rely on their own, failed, human logic...

Isa_55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

You or the Joel Osteen crowd etc have absolutely no basis to authoritatively quote scripture. The canonical texts were put together ELEVEN centuries before the evil of the Protestant reformation that in Hillaire Belloc’s famous words have “spawned a cluster of heresies.”

If you know even the bare rudiments of historical theology, it was not until the Synod of Rome (382) and the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) that we find a definitive list of canonical books being drawn up, and each of these Councils acknowledged the very same list of books. From this point on, there is in practice no dispute about the canon of the Bible, the only exception being the so-called Protestant Reformers, who entered upon the scene in 1517, an unbelievable 11 centuries later.

Once again, there are two fundamental questions for which one cannot provide answers that are consonant with Sola Scriptura:

(A) Who or what served as the final Christian authority up to the time that the New Testament’s canon was identified?

(B) And if there was a final authority that the Protestant recognizes before the establishment of the canon, on what basis did that authority cease being final once the Bible’s canon was established?

(C) And if there was no final authority before the canonical texts were put together then your Sola Scriptura must surely be fallible.

The muck of Protestantism is seen in deadly evil of Jim Jones and David Koresh, each purporting to interpret scripture with Divine guidance and just as bad is the rubbish and vapid interpretations provided by illiterate like the Billy Grahams, and Joel Osteens. This is why today no serious scholar or theologian takes Bible-Christianity serious. They can argue only in the shallowest of the shallow ends of the theological pool. All such folks do is to randomly use drive-by scriptural quotes, the very stuff of the neighborhood foursquare church pastors.

(A) Who or what served as the final Christian authority up to the time that the New Testament’s canon was identified?

Well your religion did...It wrote the scriptures, didn't it???

Luk_24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Your religion wrote that Jesus claims the Old Testament consists of the law, the prophets and psalms...That's the canon of the Old Testament...

But wait a minute...There are no deuteralcomicals in there...They are not part of the O.T. at all...And they certainly were not recognized by any of Israel...The Catholic version of the bible that includes those funny books then must be a farce...Wouldn't you say???

You mean the Catholic canon, of course...The real canon and the authority didn't disappear in spite of the attempts by your religion to destroy it...There's only one place you get that...From the preserved words of God in the scriptures...

(C) And if there was no final authority before the canonical texts were put together then your Sola Scriptura must surely be fallible.

Oh we have a final authority...It's one you don't recognize...

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

The Lord preserves his scripture...Those preserved words were being copied and passed around for 400 years before your religion got together to reject His words...

They don't teach you that in Catholic theology eh??? You don't get that with logic, common sense or philosophy...

All Bible Christians can do is throw bits and pieces of scripture and miss out on the coherent whole. If you cannot refute the undeniable fact, that even Luther admits, it is the Catholic Church that put together the canonical texts, there is no point in further discussion. For ELEVEN centuries it is the Catholic Church that assembled the canonical texts, interpreted its passages, and followed the rituals and traditions of the early Church and produced saints, martyrs, and stigmatists.

All this was under infallible Petrine authority. Deny Petrine authority and your Sola Scriptura collapses. Admit to it, and then you won’t be able to tell us at what point Petrine authority lost its Divine guidance. It did not because God gave to Peter and his Church the inerrant power to bind and loosen until the consummation of the world.

Not every grandmother, goose, gander and local foursquare church pastor in town or the likes of Jim Jones and David Koresh or and the Billy Grahams and Jeremiah Wrights can wave around their Bible books in the air and shout out their “own” interpretation. All this is worthless stuff that only shallow minds pick up. Go check your Black AME Churches, Jimmy Swaggart, Benny Hinn and the rest of charlatans who each proclaim their “own” interpretation of scripture and your own quoting of scripture does not have the infallible backing of Petrine authority You may deny it or admit to it, but either way the Sola Script game is over.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.