The Real Presence is NOT "Literal"
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ก.ย. 2024
- We're often told that the real-presence of Christ in the Eucharist is just the "literal" interpretation of the words of institution and John chapter 6. But is this actually the case? I question that widespread assumption in this video.
~~~
Follow me on Gab: gab.com/Paulos
Join the official Discord server (The Theocrat Lounge): / discord
Become a financial supporter: www.subscribes...
Follow my social media & consider supporting my ministry in other ways. All links are here: linktr.ee/The_...
I disliked this before listening to it.
“Christ was being carried in his own hands when he handed over his body, saying, ‘This is my body’; for he was holding that very body in his hands as he spoke.” -St Augustine
Let me get this straight, what you're saying is that Jesus wasn't an Aristotelian philosopher?
I'm afraid so
the Lutheran view is exempt from this critique
I don't think so, since we're still talking about an imperceptible substance of flesh/blood. Remember tho, the video isn't critiquing the real presence itself.
This was just a word salad
Paul refuted you heretics when he said
1 Corinthians 11:27-30
New International Version
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.
Eating without decerning the body and blood of the lord is a sin according to paul
And no amount of mental gymnastics can convince me otherwise
He’s condemning people hoarding food and drink for themselves, read the entire passage.
I read the entire passage
thank you
And yes you are right
Church is not a place to get drunk and have your dinner
It's the place to eat the lord's body and drink his blood
Can you explain in what world does that affect the meaning of the next few verses
Here's the issue with your interpretation of John 6. If you asked me "Do you eat Christ's Flesh and Blood?" I can give you an unqualified "yes" as an answer. I think that still qualifies as a "literal" meaning. It's definitely not metaphorical. Your contention that the "most basic" reading would include physicality is debatable. Ontology would suffice here.
When slick willie was asked if he had sex with that woman he could give an unqualified no. It really depends what you mean by each term as to the answer you give.
You manifestly *cannot* give an unqualified "yes" to the answer. When the doubting Jews asked how Christ was going to give His flesh to eat, did they imagine the bare imperceptible substance of flesh under the species of bread, or actual flesh? Obviously the latter, and so you would absolutely have to heavily qualify that by eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood you mean "eating" an abstract substance under the species of bread and wine ("eating" in scare-quotes because you don't eat an abstract substance, but the accidents under which it subsists).
That a most basic reading includes physicality is simply not debatable; when we make ontological "is" statements about physical things in human discourse, we *always* presume a match between the label we use and the physicality of that which is labelled. The real-presence of the Eucharist is utterly unique in divorcing substance from accidents.
@@TheOtherPaul "That a most basic reading includes physicality is simply not debatable; when we make ontological "is" statements about physical things in human discourse, we always presume a match between the label we use and the physicality of that which is labelled."
Well I'm gonna prove that false by debating it lol. I think when we make ontological claims, they are simply ontological and leave the mechanism unanswered. Transubstantiation is an explanation of the mechanism of ontology. But one need not go further than actual ontology when one uses the verb "to be" in a non-metaphorical sense. So in John 6, the first question you have to ask is Jesus being ontological when He says "eat my flesh, drink my blood" or is He being metaphorical? We each have our reasons for our respective positions there. But I don't have to presuppose transubstantiation to get a "literal" or ontological reading of John 6. That can come from elsewhere (like the Last Supper).
@@TheOtherPaul Also, the Jews asked "how" in the "How dare you say such a thing" sense rather than an honest inquiry sense. Jesus doesn't explain how we're going to eat His Flesh and Drink His blood. He only says that we really have to do it. Yeah the Jews probably thought Jesus was talking about cannibalism but so what? Jesus doesn't give any qualifications because He's testing them and His disciples (many of whom failed the test). It's a hard saying that Jesus doesn't fully explain. He's looking for what Peter eventually said: "Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words."
The irony is that during the Reformation both the Lutherans and Roman Catholics as represented by Cardinal Cajetan denied that John 6 was about the Eucharist because the Reformed kept quoting John 6:63 which says "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh provides no benefit; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit, and are life." Thus, their position was that the "real" flesh or presence didn't benefit anything at all but what matter was the Word which are spirit and life, etc.
Hi Other Paul! I loved this video! Here is the thing however, if I were to give to you that the Bible is ambiguous with the interpretation of literal flesh and symbolic flesh, the early church fathers did not take it as symbolic flesh. Did the idea of transubstantiation come about later? Yes. However, did the prior church fathers believe in it while not having a set term to define the miracle? Yes. It is just really hard for me to deny St. Ignatius who was a follower of St. John got it all wrong with the Eucharist because that would mean two things: Either St. John got it all wrong or St. Ignatius misinterpreted.
Could you do a video on the church fathers' view of this? That would be awesome!
The doctrine of real presence strikes me as so much gaslighting. What's even more obnoxious is the way that many proponents of the doctrine (at least within Roman Catholicism) are now trying to pull back, claiming that they don't really like the word "literal" anymore. Sorry, one can't allow virtually everyone to use the term for hundreds of years and then pretend as if that's a non-issue, as if it didn't actually reflect the sensus fidei. I realize that the terminology was never used in dogmatic statements (although Pope Paul VI used the term in his Mysterium fidei, if I recall correctly). We all know that this is how Roman Catholics have talked about the doctrine for years and years. I've got quote after quote of bishops, priest, apologists, and other faithful Roman Catholics (usually with imprimaturs) insisting that the eucharistic texts of Scripture be interpreted literally. So if that whole notion of the sensus fidei means anything, this terminology should be counted as entirely appropriate theologically speaking, even if it's not sanctioned in an official dogmatic definition.
The Lord Jesus could have said "This bread is like my body" even as He says "The kingdom of heaven is like a sower," etc., etc. He did not. The most natural reading of someone's Last Will and Testament is to understand the words as they read. The Words of Institution are actually quite simple and the Real Presence does not require corporeal physicality to set forth the literal meaning of the word "is" in the context.
And as per my video, the most natural, literal reading would be that Christ is offering physical flesh and blood and/or He is made of bread and wine.
My video wasn't about refuting real presence/proving memorialism anyway, so I won't argue here.
I find that argument very weak. "The kingdom of heaven is like" is not pointing to a symbol but is a simile. Furthermore, the apostles were next to Jesus's body and then saying "this is my body" when holding up something as symbolic would have made it obvious enough.He was gesturing to a symbol with his body there. It clearly wasn't the entire body. Furthermore, Jesus's disciples never were "amazed" or "astonished" or say “It’s a ghost” like we see with the many other miracles. Jesus also didn't say "this is literally my body"...
@@TheOtherPaul Your video was about refuting the argument for Real Presence on this point of whether or not the advocates of the position have a literal reading of the text.
The natural, literal reading is that that which He gives, though retaining the substance of bread is, indeed, His body. There is no contextual reason to conclude otherwise.
@@wilsonw.t.6878 Lol. Your argument depends on what you *think* was going on in the minds of the disciples or that a memorialistic take is obvious. Obviously not, for 1,500 years, until Zwingli.
The Sacramental Union does not require gymnastics. It doesn't even require Aristotelian philosophy. It requires faith that believes the words of Christ.
@@marcuswilliams7448 "The natural, literal reading is that that which He gives, though retaining the substance of bread is, indeed, His body. There is no contextual reason to conclude otherwise."
No it isn't. The literal reading (*not* the same as natural btw) is that He will/is giving pieces of His flesh and pints of His blood to drink, and potentially that such flesh/blood is itself actually bread/wine, thus making Jesus a wine-powered gingerbread man.
As to the real natural reading, I'd simply argue that the symbolic (or what I prefer to call 'typological') reading is more natural, since it is very common in human conversation to say "X is Y" when X clearly doesn't possess the physical attributes of Y, and so we assume the person is speaking with some device like a metonym or simple representation. For example, when one points to a photo of his brother and says "This is my brother". Is the person saying the photo itself is his brother? Obviously not, but is in shorthand saying "This is a photographic image of my brother". This makes perfect sense of what Jesus is doing; providing the bread and wine as images of His body and blood for ritual remembrance.
I’d be curious to hear The Other Paul define real presence; I’ve typically referred to it as anything which Lutherans, Calvinists, Roman Catholics, or Eastern Orthodox would agree with-basically anything but a Zwinglian real absence. This video seems to want to exclude the Calvinist position from the heading of real presence, unless I’ve misunderstood.
I also, more broadly, take issue with the idea of “literal interpretation.” It seems to be a bit of a bad philosophical hangover. I subscribe to the view of biblical authority that holds the authority of the text rests with the meaning intended by the author-illocution, as opposed to mere locution-I reject reader-response theory, even the variant that holds the meaning of the text to lie in what the plain literal meaning of the text is to me/one particular reader. There are many times in the usage of human language where the illocution of an utterance is equivalent to a perceived locution, but in general there’s a great deal of subjectivity all around, with locution basically being what an utterance “literally” means to a particular hearer as a result of their exposure to the usage of words over the course of their life. Having recently migrated from the Lutheran tradition to the Anglican tradition, I can definitely attest that different language communities speaking the same language and which are even extremely similar to one another still will be found to be using the same words differently in some key places (e.g. ‘Evangelical’ in Lutheranism vs ‘Evangelical’ in Anglicanism). So I’d agree that seeking the literal meaning is pretty pointless if we’re not trying to get at what the author was actually intending to communicate.
With regard to the Lord’s Supper, I think the question is what words would we expect the author to have used if they meant real presence (in the sense I gave at the top) vs real absence. Even if we were to find that scripture is ultimately unclear, early secondary literature is a great help here-how did the next several generations of Christians use language with regard to the Eucharist. If our next earliest references came 200 years or more later, we wouldn’t have much to go on. Thankfully we’ve got writers like Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus just one to three degrees removed from the apostles themselves to help us out and show us roughly what the authors of scripture intended. While these writings don’t definitely tip the needle into one particular camp’s theology, they do rather effectively allow us to rule out a Zwinglian view. No one in the early church seemed to have received a tradition or read the text the same way as poor Ulrich, so he has to be dismissed. Yet the early Christians rejected the notion that they were cannibalistically eating Christ’s σωμα/σαρξ ψυχικον; the eating appears to have been σωμα/σαρξ πνευματικον in some real sense.
As a result, to get a bit ahead of myself, I’ve adapted a statement from the Lutheran Formula of Concord to be a bit more ecumenical and describe what we can surmise:
“We must reject the idea of the Capernaitic eating of Christ’s body, as though His flesh were torn with the teeth and digested like other food. Christ’s body and blood are received with the bread and wine, yet not in a “Capernaitic” way, but orally in a supernatural, heavenly, or spiritual way.”
The biggest alteration to the Lutheran view is removing an objection to the use of the word ‘spiritual’, as I don’t believe we have enough information to really rule it out, and ‘spiritual’ standing for Paul’s use of πνευματικον in 1 Corinthians 10 & 15 would work nicely. Like the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union, precisely how Christ is present in the Eucharist is ultimately a mystery. But there is a clear trail of language usage indicative of a belief in real presence from the pages of scripture into the church fathers that reigned unmolested until Ulrich Zwingli came on the scene, so I believe it is ultimately unwise to invest too much in any one rational explanation of the mystery. As an old Lutheran communion hymn by Gerhard Wolter Molanus wisely counsels us on the subject,
Search not how this takes place,
This wondrous mystery;
God can accomplish vastly more
Than what we think could be.
Doesn’t matter to these people
Wait a minute I remember watching a video from dr Jordan cooper where he used the cannibal argument why?
At the same time u people do believe that his literal physical body is also present right?
Can u give a more of a detailed explanation of ur view
I think tertullian and even st.Augustine kind of did hold to a symbolic view though after reading both of their views entirely
Do Lutherans worship the Eucharist?
“The seed IS the word of God” (Luke 8:11). A “literal“ meaning, according to Roman Catholicism, would lead one to believe that a seed literally transforms into Scripture. But an actual literal meaning leads the reader to understand that Jesus is making a comparison between the seed and Scripture, just as He is making a comparison between bread and His body.
Let's just skip the part where Jesus is obviously and explicitly explaining the metaphors in His PARABLE! I swear, we think Jesus isn't using metaphor in one instance and all of a sudden, protestants assume we're required to reject all metaphors. You're better than this. There IS a metaphor in John 6 though. When Jesus says "I AM the Bread of Life that has come down from Heaven. And the Bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world," He explains the metaphor. Bread of Life=Jesus' flesh. That's the metaphor.
Seed is logos and the Church since the Church is the body of christ and the laity are the brdidgeoom 1 Corinthians
@@matthewpaolantonio4003 So what did it mean when Jesus referred to Peter as Satan? And if it's not literal (because Jesus doesn't clarify that it's not), how can you justify this stance?
@@EmberBright2077 The word literally means "adversary" which is what Peter was being when he was attempting to dissuade Jesus from doing what He had to do. It was a human reaction as Jesus also pointed out but Peter failed to trust Jesus in that moment right after he demonstrated amazing faith that wasn't given to anyone else (at that time). It's a stark contrast as to what man can do with God and what man does on his own. Heaven/hell right there within what must have been minutes. The papacy is no different. When the Successor of Peter is doing his job properly, trusting Jesus and using his authority for building up, we see the immense fruit. When unfortunately there have been times where the Pope is NOT doing a good job and is trusting only in himself, he becomes a "scandal" (another word Jesus used).
@@matthewpaolantonio4003the entire passage of John 6 is literally about having faith in Christ. Belief, not literal eating. It doesn’t all of a sudden jump to the Eucharist. Thomas Aquinas never even mentions the Eucharist in his commentary on John 6. This is just reading tradition into the text.
Jono from the fish market 💀
Interesting video. As an Orthodox, I can say that the meaning of "symbolic" has been distorted over time (especially with the Enlightenment). Traditionally, symbolic referred to a reality which was a sort of conjoining between a heavenly reality and an earthly one. Post-Enlightenment, it came to mean something more akin to "allegory" or "metaphor," and was distinguished from the literal. This is key to the Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist. For us, the Eucharist does denote a real presence because it is symbolic. It is bread and wine, but it is more than that, because God is present mystically in the Eucharist and it is mystically transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. At the same time though, it is done in remembrance of Christ. So, for us, there really isn't a distinction between a "literal" or "symbolic" understanding of the Eucharist. They are one and the same. Jonathan Pageau does a good job explaining these things, as do many other Orthodox.
If Jesus was not being literal about eating his flesh then Jesus did not die for our sins on the cross!!!
John 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world
One of these things is not like the other
You eat it by believing on Him. That’s literally what the entire passage of John 6 is about. Follow the entire argument, slowly, without the lens of tradition.
I do not understand: every Sunday, I eat and rip apart Christ's literal flesh with my teeth. I also drink his blood.
I do not understand how this is possible, but it is true. Because our Lord has promised us that he will forgive us if we drink his blood and eat his body.
No you don't
Your description is very graphic! It's true that Jesus gave us His body. He laid down His body for us, for the forgiveness of our sins and then He commanded us to eat his flesh and drink his blood (John 6). However, we’re doing it in an un-bloody way. Once we receive the Eucharist on our tongue and it starts to dissolve, it’s no longer at that point actually the body and blood of Christ. So the Real Presence of Christ leaves at that moment. So we don't 'digest' Jesus, like we would if we were eating the 'dead and bloody' flesh, body, and blood of another human being that we’ve killed to eat as food. It's a mystery, a wonderful gift of supernatural life that we receive from this Sacrament. Hope this helps.
@@clivejames5058 Luther used that language iirc
You are vastly overcomplicating the matter. All transubstantiation means is that the Eucharist is truly (ontologically) Christ's Body and Blood, just as He said, even though it doesn't look like it. That's it! It's not that hard to grasp. And that view is ubiquitous in the Early Church Fathers.
This isn’t true. Transubstantiation doesn’t show up til centuries afterward. And after it shows up people try to read it back into the earliest church fathers anachronistically.
@@jaserader6107 Then you aren't paying attention to the Fathers. When they give an explanation that is logically identical to transubstantiation, or logically requires transubstantiation, no one is being anachronistic.
@@matthewpaolantonio4003 does east has the same and exact view?
@@gamerjj777 Apparently. I've been informed by an Eastern Orthodox (that Other Paul also knows) that transubstantiation is Eastern Orthodox dogma.
Then you missed the point of my whole argument. I get that transubstantiation makes an ontological claim, but the very nature of that ontological claim is so developed and alien to virtually every other ontological claim in human discourse that it cannot be said to be "literal", i.e. taking the words in their most basic sense. As I said, a truly literal reading of the relevant passages would mean actual cannibalism or eating a ginger-bread man powered by wine.
I also deny the premise that this view is "ubiquitous" among the fathers, but that's a totally separate discussion to this video.
So are you a teaching authority
No.
what does that mean?
@@gaseredtune5284 well if the question is for me one of the teachings of Protestants and if you have 66 books in your Bible you're a Protestant believe in personal interpretations only not all Protestants but many persons believe in personal interpretations only and many Protestant groups are against authority like a teaching authority so if you believe in personal interpretations and you're against teaching authority how can you say anyone is right or wrong and if you are saying you are a teaching authority can you give me a biblical statement that you believe is 100% true like Jesus was born from the Virgin Mary?
@@TheJackjack So how do you know if someone has teaching authority or not?
@@gaseredtune5284by telling people what is right and what is wrong makes you a teaching authority he said it's not literal where does the text say it's not literal?
Other Paul just wondering. Would you be willing to agree that the Eucharist represents the body and blood of Christ on earth in a present day reality?
Could you elaborate?
Did you bother to read John 6:52-54?
Yes. How does this change my argument?
@@TheOtherPaul You said The Presence is not literal, which is false, is the exact opposite.
@@salomonkalou9002 you either haven't watched my video or were playing your Xbox the whole time. Listen through again and address my points, because the whole video challenges your very claim about the passage.
@@TheOtherPaul I listened very careful, son, and you said nonsense.
@@salomonkalou9002 clearly while playing your Xbox then. If you really did listen, refute what I actually said rather than repeat the very thing Im challenging.
I’ve always been curious about how the Memorialism view of the Eucharist among people from “high church” denominations influences their view on baptism.
Is your view on baptism that it’s a picture symbol and representation of regeneration like how your view on the Eucharist is that it’s a picture symbol and representation of Jesus’ body?
If not, do you think there could be some interpretive disconnect among your view on the sacraments?
I'm still in flux on baptism, but I dont think there's any necessary connection between a Memorialist eucharistology and a purely symbolic baptistic theology. Ive even heard it suggested Zwingli himself may have affirmed Real Presence.
EDIT: WOOPS I just saw this comment again and its wrong lmao. I meant to say Zwingli may have affirmed Baptismal Regeneration
Do you enjoy promoting blasphemy?
Not at all. That's why I don't do it.
@@TheOtherPaul when you deny that Eucharist is the literal presence and body of the second person of the most blessed Trinity, that is blasphemy. Protestantism will naturally lead you into atheism.
Lmao this argument is so bad... That it neglects everything philosophical....
Be it models of Trinity or arguments of God... Because a fisherman from Galilee won't believe in it....
Now reject philosophical view of incarnation and Trinity and everything because you think some authors of Bible were too much of simpleton to believe in them
Haha that's funny dude. Now try responding to what I actually said.
The eating and drinking in John 6 are fulfilled by the believing in John 6.
I liked this show but sheesh why you had to take route John 6:66 other Paul ☦️
Great fuel for the JWs. The Word was with God and the Word WAS God. But IS does not denote ontology....so according to your logic, the Word is God-ish.
Rip that papias book.
Good points.
You’re a Memorialist?!?!? Sick! 🤠
Imagine looking at an old scrapbook. On one page you can point to someone and say "this is Paul when he was 5. You can flip to another page and again point to this same person and say "this is Paul when he was 10." From age 5 to age 10, the physical part of said Paul has completely changed, yet the core substance, Paul himself, has stayed the same. It was always Paul, even though the physical parts of him have changed drastically. This example shows it's not unnatural to understand "this is my body" and "this is my blood" in the accidents / substance distinction. The bread / wine is Jesus at it's core of being, even though physically it retains ghe qualities of bread / wine.
In this point papists are like Nicodemus
You are like the Jews: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?!”
He didn’t give them an answer and He won’t give you one either. It’s a moment of separating wheat from chaff.
Augustine agrees: The Papist apologists talk as if Jesus wants you to chew on his flesh. Augustine points heaven-ward. While is not a memorialist view, it is closer to a memorialist's understanding of feeding on Christ by faith than the fleshly eating that he specifically rejects.