Real Presence in the Eucharist

[J. J.]

First, I believe in the Real Presence, so this is academic.

Jesus did speak in metaphors.  He said, " Have you not even read this Scripture: 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone, ..."  and "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

Jesus obviously was not saying "I'm really a stone," and "If you knock down the temple, a building, I'll see that it's back up in three days."

While I do not believe this is a metaphor, it could be.

[J. J.]

First, I believe in the Real Presence, so this is academic.

Jesus did speak in metaphors.  He said, " Have you not even read this Scripture: 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone, ..."  and "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

Jesus obviously was not saying "I'm really a stone," and "If you knock down the temple, a building, I'll see that it's back up in three days."

While I do not believe this is a metaphor, it could be.

But, if what you are saying (as a Devil's Advocate) is true, then one could say that explanations were offered for his other sayings, and Jesus seems to have rather clearly explained this one at the Last Supper.  Generally, whenever Jesus was speaking purely in metaphor, an immediate explanation is given, or at least made perfectly clear in the text.

Well, I would say, in that, in that context, the Apostles did not run up Christ and start biting off fingers.  Christ didn't begin to bleed.  That certainly would have been recorded.  He didn't weaken, physically (as he did during the Passion), when he said this.


(Devil's Advocate disclaimer)

[J. J.]

First, I believe in the Real Presence, so this is academic.

Jesus did speak in metaphors.  He said, " Have you not even read this Scripture: 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone, ..."  and "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

Jesus obviously was not saying "I'm really a stone," and "If you knock down the temple, a building, I'll see that it's back up in three days."

While I do not believe this is a metaphor, it could be.

But, if what you are saying (as a Devil's Advocate) is true, then one could say that explanations were offered for his other sayings, and Jesus seems to have rather clearly explained this one at the Last Supper.  Generally, whenever Jesus was speaking purely in metaphor, an immediate explanation is given, or at least made perfectly clear in the text.

Well, I would say, in that, in that context, the Apostles did not run up Christ and start biting off fingers.  Christ didn't begin to bleed.  That certainly would have been recorded.  He didn't weaken, physically (as he did during the Passion), when he said this.


(Devil's Advocate disclaimer)

Well, clearly it was still a metaphor of sorts.  He didn't want them to cannibalizes him right there.  What I am addressing is that he seems make it pretty clear that the Bread and Wine are Body and Blood.

But not really, symbolically.

(Devil's Advocate, I'm vomiting at my own argument)

[J. J.]

As an aside, I visited my niece's church awhile ago.  Big mega church -- Evangelical, non-denominational, semi-Charismatic, in Central Ohio.  Pastor says from the pulpit, "if any of you want communion today, feel free to grab some out in the lobby.  We have some booths set up right by the coffee and doughnuts."

I kid you not.

The Eighth Sacrament is sometimes referred to as "coffee afterwards." 

[J. J.]

1 Cor 11:14-21
17
    Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

Quite clearly, Paul is using an analogy.  I think puts the rest into that context as well.  Much like my "It's Zogby" comments, I could say here, "It's Paul," not one of the Apostles nor Christ.

   
**********
 23
    11 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24
    and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
25
    In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26
    For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

*****

You proclaim[/b] his death, again symbolic.



29
    For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.

"Discerning the body" how?  Do so as a "remembrance,"  is symbolic.  (Devil's Advocate)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Christ was not a lamb!  Christ did not transform into an animal!  The only to read this literally is to argue that he did.  This one is clearly symbolic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The very same book refers to being washed in the blood of the lamb and being white afterward.  That is clearly symbolic.  (Actually not playing Devil's Advocate on these two points.  They are intended to be symbolic.)

[J. J.]

There is a difference between purely symbolic and "symbolic" of an obvious truth.

On that note, I would like to say that I wish this were the middle ages, so I could have you tried as a heretic and I might dispose of this argument.

You better be careful, as you just claimed Jesus was a sheep. 

(I wonder how much Devil's Advocates can make.  Possibly more than a Grand Inquisitioner?)

[J. J.]

There is a difference between purely symbolic and "symbolic" of an obvious truth.

On that note, I would like to say that I wish this were the middle ages, so I could have you tried as a heretic and I might dispose of this argument.

(I wonder how much Devil's Advocates can make.  Possibly more than a Grand Inquisitor?)

Depends on a few factors
1) Firm Size - France
2) City N/A
3) Area of Practice very technical theological points
4a) For those just out of school, institution and class rank OR
4b) Personal practice record Actually very detailed