Believer's Test pt. 1
Padraic42
(Found on AOL's Catholic Archives)
The Believer's Test
Does Jesus come to us in the flesh? Today? This is one of the most
important issues which separates Christians. Some believe that the bread
and wine in Communion actually becomes the real flesh and blood of Jesus
Himself. This is often referred to as the "Real Presence". Others insist
that the bread and wine are just that -- bread and wine. They explain
that these foods are only symbolically representing the body and blood of
Jesus. This controversy was the subject of a lively discussion in a
on-line computer forum with a man named Karl. This is my answer.
Dear Karl,
Thank you for your thoughtful post. It was well-focused and goes to the
very heart of the matter. You say: "To begin with, CHRIST IS NOT IN THE
EUCHARIST!!! This is a fallacy for the gullibles. We eat unleavened bread
in memory of Him and that's it. His last supper talk was symbolic."
Before we go further in our discussion, Karl, let's first take a step back
and understand the importance of this issue. The two largest Christian
Churches, Catholic and Orthodox, have encouraged their followers to
actually worship Jesus under the appearance of "bread and wine" in the
Eucharist. Therefore if you are correct in suggesting that the bread and
wine only symbolically represent Jesus, then these people have been
worshipping the works of human hands! They have been bowing down before
an idol for almost 2,000 years! On the other hand, should it be true that
the Son of God is fully present under the appearance of bread and wine in
the Eucharist, then our Creator dwells among us in the flesh! Surely you
must agree, Karl, that the stakes are high. These Christians kneel before
either the blasphemous -- or the sublime. There is no in-between. We
have, indeed, selected a worthy subject for our discussion.
Unhappily, there has been much in strife and harsh words between
Christians over this topic for the last several centuries. So that we
might avoid this spirit of wrangling, as well as share some common ground,
let us agree to remove ourselves from the debate of our present day, and
return to the very early Christian Church teachings. If we study closely
what the first Christians held to be true, perhaps this can refresh our
perspective. Of course, the very earliest moments of Christianity are
recorded in the Gospels. Therefore I'm sure you will happily agree, Karl,
that our search for the truth should start with the Gospel that contains
the most extensive discussion of the bread and wine. We will then be able
to study this subject from the point of view of the apostles as they
listen to Christ.
As it is, this happens to be the Gospel of John, especially around Chapter
6, verse 35 forward. Here we find Jesus standing before the people of the
synagogue, teaching of a wonderfully mysterious gift which He will give to
His followers: "'I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be
hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.'" (John 6:35)
Intriguing words, Jesus. You are the bread of life, Lord? You? An
interesting analogy, no doubt.
"But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.
Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes
to me I will never drive away. And this is the will of Him who sent me,
that I should lose nothing of all that He has given me...." (John
6:36-39)
What is it that we do not believe Lord? That you are the bread? Well, to
tell you the truth, I am sort of confused here. I don't quite understand
your point... And yet a little later you again tell us:
"'I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness,
and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one
may eat of it and not die." (John 6:48-50)
Sorry, but I'm still not quite sure what you mean here, Jesus. But if it
means I will not die by having this bread, then tell me more..."I am the
living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will
live forever..." (John 6:51)
Curious, that you repeat this teaching for the third time now, Lord. You
are obviously emphasizing that it is You Who are the bread. OK. But in
what way? How? What sort of analogy are you giving to us? You are
obviously not a loaf of bread standing before the crowd. Therefore a
symbolic interpretation still seems to be the obvious one here, and
certainly the most sensible."...and the bread that I will give for the
life of the world is my flesh." (John 6:51)
Uh-oh... What did He just say Karl? The bread He is talking about is His
flesh? How can this be? And yet it is clear that Jesus is now
identifying just exactly what the "bread" actually is. Perhaps we're just
thoroughly confused here... let's look further: "The Jews then disputed
among themselves, saying, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?'"
(John 6:52)
We're not the only ones confused here, Karl. These folks have understood
Jesus quite literally too, and they don't like it one bit! It looks as
though we have some company. If He doesn't intend the literal
interpretation of His words, Jesus had better clarify things here and now,
and calm these people down.
"So Jesus said to them, 'Very truly, I tell you..." (John 6:53)
Oh good! This passage begins with an oath.1 Surely now, Jesus will get
down to business and set the record straight. People are confused here.
Certainly we can trust that our Lord will make it clear exactly what He
means to teach us: "...unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and
drink His blood, you have no life in you." (John 6:53) (Can you hear
the crowd gasp?)
"Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will
raise them up on the last day..." (John 6:54)
What? How can He say this?! "for my flesh is true food and my blood is
true drink." (John 6:55)
Can't Jesus see that He is upsetting the crowd? Does He really have to
keep repeating the "flesh" and "blood" part in such a graphic way? "Those
who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.'" (John
6:56)
Goodness gracious! What is Jesus doing?! He is not exactly calming the
crowd down with a beautiful and soothing explanation that this was all
just an analogy or a symbolic reference -- just a parable. Instead, Jesus
solemnly pronounces four times in a row that His followers must eat His
flesh and drink His blood. How shall we understand such strong and
powerful words? Could Jesus make the meaning of His words any more blunt
for us? He is emphatically and deliberately driving home the striking
realism of the command that we eat His flesh and drink His blood.
Relentlessly. He even takes care to begin this pronouncement with an
oath.
We have a real problem here, Karl.
Let's try and get our bearings here once more, and re-read this passage as
a whole, for this certainly seems to be a stunning revelation: "So Jesus
said to them, 'Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son
of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my
flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on
the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those
who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.'" (John
6:53-56)
How, Karl, can we escape the obvious intent of these words which cause so
much concern among the listeners of Jesus? Surely Jesus knew this was
going to be a tremendously controversial teaching. Even the original
Greek text emphasizes the earthy realism of the word which has been
translated here as "eat". It is actually a stronger word than what is
normally used in Scriptures to describe the idea of eating. A more
precise translation would be closer to the words "chew" or "gnaw".2 This
would render the passage: "Those who chew my flesh and drink my blood..."
Obviously Jesus was going out of His way to graphically show how the
eating would occur. Then He repeats the phrase four times in a row -- so
that none would misunderstand His meaning...
But let's continue and see what further teaching He will add to this:
"'Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so
whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down
from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But
the one who eats this bread will live forever.' He said these things
while He was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum." (John 6:57-59)
OK, Karl, let's sort this out. We know that the manna which was the first
"bread from heaven" was given by God to the Chosen People in the desert.
Jesus teaches his listeners that it fed the flesh and saved their
forefathers from physical death as a pre-figurement of Him. Manna was a
powerful symbol for the Jews listening; it was so revered by their
forefathers that it was given the supreme honor of being placed in the Arc
of the Covenant, along with the tablets of the Ten Commandments. Later on
it was placed in the Holy of Holies within the Temple. Yet we are
reminded by Jesus that even this holy and heavenly bread could not save
the people of God from spiritual death. However, Jesus as the "bread of
life" will save us from eternal spiritual death. Amazing. Truly
wonderful!
But please, Lord, would You calm these people down with an explanation
more palatable than actually gnawing your flesh and drinking your blood?
Please? Are you going to lose your followers over some terrible
misunderstanding? Will You scatter your sheep? "When many of His
disciples heard it, they said, "This teaching is difficult; who can accept
it?" (John 6:60)
Oh dear... Not only is the general crowd gathered at the Synagogue
rebelling, but even the very disciples of Jesus are now grumbling against
Him! Well, Karl, these angry people are on your side. Like you, they are
repelled by the thought of having to eat the flesh and drink the blood of
Jesus. It is obvious that even His disciples have not understand Him
symbolically, but rather very literally -- and they don't like this bloody
commandment of His in the least. If we were sitting with the crowd
looking around at all of these bewildered and angry people, we might be
muttering to ourselves: Well, Lord, this may be your last chance. Do You
really mean what You say? Are You going to drive away these people over a
misunderstanding? You are the Truth, aren't You? The Good Shepherd? A
few moments ago, didn't You tell us that:
"...anyone who comes to me I will never drive away; for I have come down
from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me. And
this is the will of Him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all
that He has given me..." (John 6:37-39)
Jesus, in my heart I know You would never deliberately drive away your
sheep... and certainly never because You wanted them to misunderstand You.
Before, when we have been confused, You explained yourself to us.3 You
have taught us that You are the Way and the Truth. Will You now simply
watch us as we stumble down the dark path of falsehood?
"But Jesus, being aware that His disciples were complaining about it, said
to them, 'Does this offend you?'" (John 6:61)
Well, Lord... I... uh...
"Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where He was
before?" (John 6:62)
Good grief Karl! Instead of apologizing for the confusion here or
explaining His words as some symbolic meaning, Jesus offers them yet
another marvel to accept in faith. He actually raises the stakes by
insisting that His followers believe Him without question! Clearly Jesus
is not backing down in the least about either the meaning or the
impression which He has made with His followers. He is requiring of them
that they must either believe in Him and His teachings... or leave.
Clearly, this is a Test for His believers. Jesus then continues: "'It is
the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have
spoken to you are spirit and life.'" (John 6:63)
All right, Lord, You encourage us to believe in this new teaching by
telling us how important these new words actually are. You urge us onward
by revealing that these special words are "spirit and life" for us. We
know that man's flesh was fed by manna, and this new bread will feed our
spirit. The words of Moses in the desert when he commanded the Israelites
to eat the manna have now given way to the words of Jesus as He commands
us to eat his flesh. The Old Law could save a person from the physical
death of the flesh, but it was meant to prepare us for that sacred moment
when the Word would come down from heaven and give eternal "spirit and
life" to our soul. I think I get it Lord... but first, let me once again
recall what exactly those words of "spirit and life" are... "unless you
eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in
you". (John 6:53)
These are the words of "spirit and life" which divide the hearts of those
listeners standing before you now... those of us who would call themselves
your followers. Your words test our faith in You, Lord. Shall I believe?
"'But among you there are some who do not believe.'" (John 6:64)
But Lord, how is it that we are to come to believe such a difficult
teaching? We stare at this moment of wonder and question this new manna
from heaven. What is it? Yet in so questioning your words, we find that
we are fulfilling the prophecy found in the very word of "manna" itself.
For manna means "What is it?"4 It is what the rebellious Israelites
retorted when they were given the first "bread from heaven". It seems
that whether it is the old manna, or the new, still we doubt what God
offers to us...
In a way that's understandable, isn't it Karl? This is a tremendous test
of our faith. Now is the moment when the followers of Jesus will betray
the true depth of their belief. "For Jesus knew from the first who were
the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray Him."
(John 6:64)
Amazing! Not only is the issue of our faith on the line here, but also
betrayal? Scripture seems to be telling us that the betrayal of Judas is
connected to this test of faith. "And He said, 'For this reason I have
told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.'"
(John 6:65)
Hmmm... So, if we are to pass this test and come to believe Christ's
words here, if we are to answer the question "what is it?", then the gift
of faith from our heavenly Father will guide us. But Lord, please help
us. I look around amongst your disciples and fear, for some have set their
face against your Word...
"Because of this many of His disciples turned back and no longer went
about with Him." (John 6:66)
Stunning. Even His own disciples were so shocked and outraged by this
incredible teaching that they left Jesus. They simply could not tolerate
the literal meaning of His words. A symbolic meaning would have been nice
and neat... not a problem. How then are we to cling to the idea that
Jesus spoke symbolically here, Karl? Did the Son of God deliberately
foster a misconception and then scatter His flock? Did He "drive them
away" right after He promised He would not do this? Would He deliberately
tempt the crowd, the disciples, and even the twelve apostles to abandon
Him because of a miscommunication?
Could He ever do such a thing?
Let's return once again to the powerful scene unfolding before us. In
response to this remarkable teaching of Christ's, Scripture now sadly
portrays the crowd thinning and the disciples shaking their heads in
disbelief, and leaving in disgust... Next we find that even the apostles
themselves must face The Believer's Test:
"So Jesus asked the twelve, 'Do you also wish to go away?'" (John 6:67)
Lord, I believe... help my unbelief! With a passionate desire to make the
choice absolutely clear to His followers, our Savior once again draws the
sword of truth which divides believer from non-believer. With unrelenting
finality toward the few followers who now remain, Christ insists -- you
must choose. Facing this deep and impenetrable mystery, the spokesman for
the apostles continues the drama:
"Simon Peter answered Him, 'Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of
eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One
of God.'" (John 6:68-69)
Here shines the deep wisdom of humble faith!
Peter simply replies by acknowledging the authority of Christ. It is
obvious that Peter can't explain things. He doesn't say: "Oh, I
understand Jesus. Its just symbolism! We don't really have to chew your
flesh and drink your blood. You were just speaking allegorically. This
has all been just a terrible misunderstanding..."
Karl, the truth is Peter didn't have a clue!
His understanding had completely failed to penetrate the awesome mystery
of Jesus' new teaching. He was dumbfounded on how it could be that he
would need to chew the body and drink the blood of the Man standing before
him. And yet, Peter was not lost!
He had not failed The Believer's Test. He believed in the Christ, the
"Holy One of God". That was enough for him. For I'm sure you will agree,
Karl, that in the face of any mystery whose greatness exceeds our puny
minds, faith must be our guide. When we ask the manna question, "what is
it?", our intellect must be humble and not presume to have that wisdom
needed to comprehend the mystery before us. We cannot afford to make the
same mistake the Israelites did when they failed their test of faith, for
we do not want to be denied the Promised Land, as were they.5
When Peter is faced with the manna question, he simply says, "Lord, to
whom can we go?" This is the answer for all true believers, Karl.
Consider the alternative. Shall we demand that the teachings of God be
according to our own paltry wisdom?
Peter and the apostles, and yes, you and I, are now face to face with that
climactic moment of faith which has echoed down through all of history.
It is the moment which enters into each and every person's life. After
God calls us in faith, He then calls us again to an even greater faith.
The mustard seed must grow, or wither. The result of this moment is
either glorious hope... or terrible judgment.
We are witness to this test of faith echo through time as we read
Scriptures and see the covenant of faith renewed again and again. Abraham
abandoned all human hope and submitted in faith when told that the
shedding of his son Isaac's blood was God's will. Moses submitted in
trust when told that shedding the lamb's blood would save his own life and
that of his people from the terrible angel of death. David trusted God by
believing, in defiance of all reason, that the blood of the mighty Goliath
would be delivered into his hands and thereby save his people. And now,
Karl, we see Jesus giving this same test of faith by requiring us to
acknowledge our salvation through blood. Real blood, not symbolic. He
gives it to the apostles... and to us...
It is the same Test for all of us.
Jesus eagerly awaits our acceptance in faith, and when it is given, the
Good Shepherd is certainly pleased. For it is with obvious satisfaction
that: "Jesus answered them, 'Did I not choose you, the twelve?" (John
6:70)
Nevertheless, by revealing the mystery of His body and blood to His
followers, Jesus lost the crowd gathered at the Synagogue. He apparently
lost most of His disciples along with the crowd, and He almost lost the
twelve apostles themselves. In fact, one of the twelve did fail The
Believer's Test and was lost. For Scripture continues and sadly records
the tragic consequence of The Believer's Test:
"'Yet one of you is a devil.' He was speaking of Judas son of Simon
Iscariot, for he, though one of the twelve, was going to betray him."
(John 6:71)
There is an obvious question to ask here, Karl. Why would Jesus pick this
occasion to speak of the betrayal of Judas, unless this was the very
moment when Judas refused to accept Jesus' teaching? It would seem that
when faced with the manna question Judas failed The Believer's Test,
betraying Jesus in his heart.
And Jesus knew.
These passages from the Gospel of John are a very unique part of
Scripture, Karl. For nowhere else does it describe such a devastating
blow to the ranks and numbers of Christ's own disciples. No where else
does an apostle fall. No where else is Christ so relentlessly insistent
that his followers choose His Wisdom or leave Him now. Having now
reviewed this comprehensive passage on the body and blood of Jesus, we
should take note of the time of year that this scene takes place in, for
this too has a special significance. John records at the beginning of
this same chapter that: "Jesus went up the mountain and sat down there
with his disciples. Now the Passover, the festival of the Jews, was
near." (John 6:5)
We shall soon see that there is a special significance to the fact that
Jesus used the important Passover high feast as the moment to begin
teaching on His body and blood.
After the Gospel of John, the second most extensive teaching on the body
and blood of Jesus is found in the account of the Last Supper, shared by
several of the Gospels. Here, once again, it is Passover time when blood
must be offered as sacrifice to God. Scripture describes the disciples
and Jesus sitting down and partaking of the sacred Passover meal. This
involved performing the rituals of redemption which centered on the blood
of the Passover lamb, for this, the holiest and most important of all
Jewish feast days. Scripture tells us that Jesus awaited this final
Passover with great anticipation:
"When the hour came, he took his place at the table, and the apostles with
him. He said to them, 'I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with
you before I suffer...' " (Luke 22:14-15)
If you consider it for a moment, Karl, it is rather intriguing that Jesus
was "eagerly" awaiting this meal with His apostles. Especially when you
realize it is the only time in the entire Bible that Jesus is described as
being "eager" for something.6 Surely this adds a special air of
significance to what is about to take place. Why is He so anxious to eat
this Passover with them?
"While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it
He broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is my
body'. Then He took a cup, and after giving thanks He gave it to them,
saying, 'Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood...'" (Matthew
26:26-28)
Notice that Jesus says "this is my body" and "this is my blood". Imagine
the wonder on the apostles faces as He connects his teaching in John 6 to
the heavenly bread and wine now being offered to them. Could there be any
doubt to the apostles as they listen to Jesus (once again at Passover
time) that He is now speaking of the same body and blood as He did then?
Of course it would have been very different if Jesus had instead said,
"this is a sign of my body" or "this is a symbol of my blood".
Next, the plot thickens. Having just told the apostles that this bread is
"my body" and this wine is "my blood", Jesus makes yet another stunning
announcement:
"This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. But
see, the one who betrays me is with me, and his hand is on the table. For
the Son of Man is going as it has been determined, but woe to that one by
whom he is betrayed!" (Luke 22:21-23)7
Once again, Karl, Jesus connects the betrayal of Judas to his teaching on
his body and blood. What Jesus knew about the heart of Judas in John 6 is
revealed once more. It would seem that this teaching of the divides the
believer from the non-believer, the faithful from the unfaithful, His
apostles from His betrayer.
"I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But it is to
fulfill the scripture, 'The one who ate my bread has lifted his heel
against me.' I tell you this now, before it occurs, so that when it does
occur, you may believe that I am he..." (John 13:18-19)
This betrayal so deeply grieved our dear Savior, that His sorrow showed to
all those present:
After saying this Jesus was troubled in spirit, and declared, "Very truly,
I tell you, one of you will betray me." (John 13:21)
Seeing that Judas had once more failed the Believer's Test, Jesus was
deeply distressed by the impending betrayal and doom of this lost man.
Yet for those who truly loved Jesus, this betrayal was incomprehensible:
The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he was speaking.
One of his disciples -- the one whom Jesus loved -- was reclining next to
him; Simon Peter therefore motioned to him to ask Jesus of whom he was
speaking. So while reclining next to Jesus, he asked him, "Lord, who is
it?" Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread
when I have dipped it in the dish." So when he had dipped the piece of
bread, he gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot. After he received the
piece of bread, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, "Do quickly
what you are going to do." ...So, after receiving the piece of bread, he
immediately went out. And it was night. (John 13:22-30)
The betrayal was complete. Judas took the bread, and received Jesus
without believing, murdering Him in his heart. Satan had won the
argument. It was only bread and wine to Judas.8
Now, as Jesus fulfills the Old Law with the New Law, they are told to eat
of the New Lamb. Jesus now explains that this is His body, this is His
blood.9 With this wondrous and amazing pronouncement at the Last Supper,
Jesus completes His first Passover teaching found in John 6. For, as it
is now clear, it is not mere coincidence that the two primary teachings on
the body and blood are given by Jesus on the feast of the Passover, when
of the Paschal lamb is to be offered to God.
Had not John the Baptist told them three years earlier: "Look, here is
the Lamb of God!" (John 1:37)
If you search out all of the passages in the New Testament regarding the
body and blood of Jesus, Karl, you will find a consistent belief that the
bread and wine are actually and truly Jesus Himself. Nowhere in all of
the Bible is there any claim that this is not true. Consider what St.
Paul teaches us in the following passage:
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of
Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of
Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16)
Let us consider the meaning of this passage, and especially the meaning of
the word "share". Suppose, Karl, that you invite me to your home with an
invitation which says "Come and eat with me tonight, and we will share
some lamb together". I, of course, am delighted with such a proposal, and
show up promptly at the appointed time. When I do so, what is it that I
shall expect from your kind promise that I share in your lamb? Shall I
receive some real lamb, or will you serve me with lamb-shaped biscuits or
some other symbol of a lamb? Surely you intended to offer some genuine
lamb? Therefore if the cup of blessing that Paul speaks of here is "a
sharing in the body of Christ", then doesn't it make sense that we
actually receive the very thing shared? Is there any reason to believe
that it is a mere "symbol" of the actual body of Christ Himself?
But perhaps, Karl, you wish for even further confirmation from Scriptures?
In fact, this last passage was just a warm-up in Paul's letter to the
Corinthians. Listen as his powerful words continue in the next Chapter,
where he chastises those who have become lukewarm in their reverence
toward the body and blood:
"I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord
Jesus on the night when He was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when He
had given thanks, He broke it and said, 'This is my body that is for you.
Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way He took the cup also,
after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this,
as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' " (1 Cor. 11:23-25)
Paul starts off by reminding them that when it comes to Communion, Jesus
made it clear that "This is my body...", and that we should be remembering
Him10 as we receive him. What is Paul leading up to?
"For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the
Lord's death until He comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks
the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body
and blood of the Lord." (1 Cor. 11:26-27)
Goodness gracious! Do you understand what he just said Karl? Those who
take Communion in an unworthy manner are "answerable for the body and
blood of the Lord"! This was a Jewish idiom for saying, that they were
guilty of murder!11 The sin of Judas again rears its ugly head. Paul
indicates that murder is what happens with the unworthy reception of
Communion. But this only make sense if the bread and wine referred to in
the previous verse are actually and truly a living person... the living
body and blood of Jesus Himself. It would be ridiculous to accuse the
Corinthians of murder if Communion bread and wine were merely symbols of
Jesus. The misuse of symbols would never bring down upon them such a
heavy accusation.12
Do you perhaps still doubt that Paul was serious about the bread and wine
being the actual body and blood of Jesus, Karl? Then see what the Apostle
says next: "Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink
of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat
and drink judgment against themselves." (1 Cor. 11:28-29)
Pax Christi, Pat
"If a man wishes to come after me, he must deny his very self, take up his cross, and begin to follow in my footsteps." (Matt.16:24)
see...@ibm.net
Padraic: Without in any way wishing to deny the doctrine of the
"Real Presence", can you tell us if it can be defended based on
the Gospels other than that of John?
Not nearly as much, I think? I wonder why?
Isn't it a;so true that John's Gospel was almost denied a place
in the Canon of Scripture?
seeker
In <19970707233...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, padr...@aol.com (Padraic42) writes:
>(Found on AOL's Catholic Archives)
>
>The Believer's Test
>
>Does Jesus come to us in the flesh? Today? This is one of the most
>important issues which separates Christians. Some believe that the bread
>and wine in Communion actually becomes the real flesh and blood of Jesus
>Himself. This is often referred to as the "Real Presence". Others insist
>that the bread and wine are just that -- bread and wine. They explain
>that these foods are only symbolically representing the body and blood of
>Jesus. This controversy was the subject of a lively discussion in a
>on-line computer forum with a man named Karl. This is my answer.
[very long discussion snipped]
Padraic42
>Padraic: Without in any way wishing to deny the doctrine of the
>"Real Presence", can you tell us if it can be defended based on
>the Gospels other than that of John?
>
>Not nearly as much, I think? I wonder why?
>
>Isn't it a;so true that John's Gospel was almost denied a place
>in the Canon of Scripture?
>
Sure it can (did you fail the test?). Reference Matt. 26:26-27; Mark
14:22; and Luke 22:19, where Christ said 'This IS my body". Not this
symbolizes my body, or this is like my body, or represents my body, but
rather "This IS my body".
Of course you wanted just the Gospel's, but we can also see it confirmed
in 1 Cor. 10:16 and 11:27-29.