So I know many of the Christians on here have stated that they believe things because that's what Jesus says in the Bible, etc.

 

My question for the BGP Christian community, is how do you justify taking the stance that the Eucharist is not truly the body and blood of Christ? In the Bible it says, "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." (Matthew 26:26)

 

Just curious as to why this part of the NT is basically overlooked by those Christians who are not Catholic.

Jesus also said, "I am the door...I am the gate" etc. but he isn't really a door or a gate. I believe he was speaking metaphorically when he said, "This is my body." So for me, I'm not overlooking it; I just don't take it as literal.

^So, just to be clear, it's okay to pick and choose which parts of the NT we take literal and which parts we don't?

^So, just to be clear, it's okay to pick and choose which parts of the NT we take literal and which parts we don't?

 

I love the spin people that take the bible literally put on some things. Not saying you RP just in general.

^So, just to be clear, it's okay to pick and choose which parts of the NT we take literal and which parts we don't?

I think you have to evaluate each on it's on merit to decide. It's obvious the bread and wine were symbols of his body and blood. Catholics don't take everything literally but they profess to do so.

One of the reasons the Catholic Church believe that the Eucharist truly IS the body and blood of Christ is because it is stated clearly so many times in so many different books of the New Testament - including all four of the Gospels.

 

Matthew 26: 26-28 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and gave it to His disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then He took a cup, and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

 

Mark 14: 22-24 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and gave it to His disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” Then He took a cup, and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” He said to them.

 

Luke 22: 15-20 And He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.” After taking the cup, He gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."

 

John 6: 53-56 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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

 

All four of the evangelists found it necessary to refer to our sharing in Jesus' body and blood. Admittedly, John's Gospel is the most poetic, and often can and should be taken figuratively (à la John 10:9 "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved."), however, all four of the Gospel writers chose to use the same language.

 

Also, St. Paul confirms it in 1 Corinthians on two separate occasions: 10: 16, and 11: 23-29.

I think you have to evaluate each on it's on merit to decide. It's obvious the bread and wine were symbols of his body and blood. Catholics don't take everything literally but they profess to do so.

 

These last two sentences are the crux of the issue. Catholics don't claim to take the NT literally. Christians do, yet Catholics are the ones who believe that the bread and wine are truly the body and blood. Seems backwards doesn't it?

These last two sentences are the crux of the issue. Catholics don't claim to take the NT literally. Christians do, yet Catholics are the ones who believe that the bread and wine are truly the body and blood. Seems backwards doesn't it?

Are you saying Catholics and Christians are separate?

Are you saying Catholics and Christians are separate?

 

I would assume he meant to say Protestants rather than Christians. Catholics and Protestants are all Christians.

Are you saying Catholics and Christians are separate?

 

I know lots of Catholics who use this language. Among a lot of Catholics (and I'd imagine others as well), "Christian" has become a term used to describe a particular brand of aggressive, literalist evangelicals.

^So, just to be clear, it's okay to pick and choose which parts of the NT we take literal and which parts we don't?

 

Sometimes it's difficult to do so, but yes. That's what makes interpretation of Scripture difficult in a few spots. To me, it's obvious that when Jesus said "if your eye causes you to sin, cut it out" he was speaking metaphorically. If I gouged out both of my eyes, I could still lust (which is the sin Jesus was addressing there), so there's no way he really intended for us to do that.

These last two sentences are the crux of the issue. Catholics don't claim to take the NT literally. Christians do, yet Catholics are the ones who believe that the bread and wine are truly the body and blood. Seems backwards doesn't it?

I've actually been told the exact opposite by Catholics. However if Catholics do not take the NT literally then why do take this part literally. Aren't they doing exactly what you criticize Christians for doing?

I know lots of Catholics who use this language. Among a lot of Catholics (and I'd imagine others as well), "Christian" has become a term used to describe a particular brand of aggressive, literalist evangelicals.

So would those Catholics not consider themselves Christians?

So would those Catholics not consider themselves Christians?

 

Catholics are Christians.

 

Poor wording on my part. Basically I'm meaning non-Catholic Christians, as Catholics are the only ones who truly believe the bread and wine are in fact Jesus' body and blood.

I've actually been told the exact opposite by Catholics. However if Catholics do not take the NT literally then why do take this part literally. Aren't they doing exactly what you criticize Christians for doing?

 

I'm not criticizing Christians for not taking it literally. I'm criticizing those that say you can't pick and choose (Because that's exactly what they really do). Catholics do not (at least none I've ever encountered) take the Bible as literal translation, and they don't claim too.