Is the Eucharist another golden calf?

[genuineoriginal]

Catholics and Orthodox Christians, in receiving the One Body of Christ in the Eucharist, are in a state of very near perfectly full communion. They are of course visibly in schism, and it sure would be nice if they could put their heads together and heal this external wound to unity, but one of the chief ways in which the Church is in communion with one another, is through the sharing of the Eucharist.

Protestants, who are not in full communion with either Catholics or the Orthodox, are nonetheless in a state of imperfect communion with all other Christians, due to their shared faith in Christ.

Aaron told the children of Israel that the golden calf is the God that brought them up out of the land of Egypt.

Exodus 32:2-4 DARBY 2 And Aaron said to them, Break off the golden rings that are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring [them] to me. 3 Then all the people broke off the golden rings that were in their ears, and brought [them] to Aaron. 4 And he took [them] out of their hand, and fashioned it with a chisel and made of it a molten calf: and they said, This is thy god, Israel, who has brought thee up out of the land of Egypt!​

The Catholic, Orthodox, and Episcopalian churches tell their followers that the Eucharist is the Lord Jesus Christ who died on the cross.

What is the Holy Eucharist? The Holy Eucharist is a sacrament and a sacrifice. In the Holy Eucharist, under the appearances of bread and wine, the Lord Christ is contained, offered, and received. (a) The whole Christ is really, truly, and substantially present in the Holy Eucharist. We use the words "really, truly, and substantially" to describe Christ's presence in the Holy Eucharist in order to distinguish Our Lord's teaching from that of mere men who falsely teach that the Holy Eucharist is only a sign or figure of Christ, or that He is present only by His power. (b) All Christians, with but few minor exceptions, held the true doctrine of the Real Presence from the time of Christ until the Protestant Revolution in the sixteenth century. (c) The word "Eucharist" means "Thanksgiving."

​

Is the Eucharist an idol like the golden calf?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Is the Eucharist an idol like the golden calf?

There are three different Christian beliefs about Holy Communion.

The Eucharist When it comes to the Eucharist, which most Protestants call ‘The Lord’s Supper,” or “Communion,” the Roman Catholic Church holds to the doctrine of transubstantiation—the idea that the edible ritual elements used during the mass literally become the body and blood of Christ. Dr. Svigel explains: “At the moment that the priest says, ‘This is my body,’ the invisible, unperceivable essence that…you couldn’t see (with) an electron microscope, (is) there in a miracle. It contains the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. And that becomes the spiritual and physical nourishment. As you partake of it, it becomes part of you, transforms you, and makes you more and more righteous.”​ In contrast, some Protestants, like Lutherans, hold to perspective called consubstantiation, where Jesus’ body and blood are seen as coexisting with the bread and the wine. Martin Luther likened this to the idea of a red-hot iron in a fire—united, but not changed. Dr. Bock says: “I like to call it ‘the over, under, around and through’ view. Jesus Christ surrounds the elements. He’s spiritually present, but he’s not in the elements themselves; the elements don’t become the body and blood of Christ.”​ Still, other Protestants hold to the memorial view—the idea that you’re commemorating Jesus’ death. In this understanding, the elements are symbols which remain ontologically unaffected by the ritual.

​

Does the doctrine of transubstantiation turn the Eucharist into idol worship?
What about the doctrine of consubstantiation?
Are the other Protestants correct in thinking Holy Communion is a memorial to Jesus' death?

 

[Idolater]

Aaron told the children of Israel that the golden calf is the God that brought them up out of the land of Egypt.

Exodus 32:2-4 DARBY 2 And Aaron said to them, Break off the golden rings that are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring [them] to me. 3 Then all the people broke off the golden rings that were in their ears, and brought [them] to Aaron. 4 And he took [them] out of their hand, and fashioned it with a chisel and made of it a molten calf: and they said, This is thy god, Israel, who has brought thee up out of the land of Egypt!​

The Catholic, Orthodox, and Episcopalian churches tell their followers that the Eucharist is the Lord Jesus Christ who died on the cross.

What is the Holy Eucharist? The Holy Eucharist is a sacrament and a sacrifice. In the Holy Eucharist, under the appearances of bread and wine, the Lord Christ is contained, offered, and received. (a) The whole Christ is really, truly, and substantially present in the Holy Eucharist. We use the words "really, truly, and substantially" to describe Christ's presence in the Holy Eucharist in order to distinguish Our Lord's teaching from that of mere men who falsely teach that the Holy Eucharist is only a sign or figure of Christ, or that He is present only by His power. (b) All Christians, with but few minor exceptions, held the true doctrine of the Real Presence from the time of Christ until the Protestant Revolution in the sixteenth century. (c) The word "Eucharist" means "Thanksgiving."

​

Is the Eucharist an idol like the golden calf?

Here's one salient point, from your source:

"All Christians, with but few minor exceptions, held the true doctrine of the Real Presence from the time of Christ until the Protestant Revolution in the sixteenth century."

If you consider what this means, it means that all those martyrs before Constantine (who knows how very many?) went willingly to their deaths, in part, believing that each and every Sunday, they were partaking of the Lord's real body and blood when they celebrated the Eucharist together.

Also, regarding whether the golden calf is parallel to the Eucharist, I'd say that in the former case you have the people basing their idolatry on what Aaron said, while, if Christ Jesus is not truly present in the Eucharist, that error would then be coming from a misinterpretation (a literal one) of His very own words:
Matthew 26:26 KJV, "Take, eat; this is My body."
Mark 14:22 KJV, "Take, eat: this is My body."
Luke 22:19 KJV, "This is My body .... "
1st Corinthians 11:24 KJV, "Take, eat: this is My body .... "

iow if the Real Presence is idolatrous error, then it is not a very good parallel to the golden calf, imo. It would be a different type /category of error.

 

[Idolater]

There are three different Christian beliefs about Holy Communion.

The Eucharist When it comes to the Eucharist, which most Protestants call ‘The Lord’s Supper,” or “Communion,” the Roman Catholic Church holds to the doctrine of transubstantiation—the idea that the edible ritual elements used during the mass literally become the body and blood of Christ. Dr. Svigel explains: “At the moment that the priest says, ‘This is my body,’ the invisible, unperceivable essence that…you couldn’t see (with) an electron microscope, (is) there in a miracle. It contains the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. And that becomes the spiritual and physical nourishment. As you partake of it, it becomes part of you, transforms you, and makes you more and more righteous.”​ In contrast, some Protestants, like Lutherans, hold to perspective called consubstantiation, where Jesus’ body and blood are seen as coexisting with the bread and the wine. Martin Luther likened this to the idea of a red-hot iron in a fire—united, but not changed. Dr. Bock says: “I like to call it ‘the over, under, around and through’ view. Jesus Christ surrounds the elements. He’s spiritually present, but he’s not in the elements themselves; the elements don’t become the body and blood of Christ.”​ Still, other Protestants hold to the memorial view—the idea that you’re commemorating Jesus’ death. In this understanding, the elements are symbols which remain ontologically unaffected by the ritual.

​

Does the doctrine of transubstantiation turn the Eucharist into idol worship?

The doctrine you're really talking about is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, to which transubstantiation is a footnote. Transubstantiation is the process through which the elements of communion, the bread and the cup, become the body and blood of the Lord. But however this occurs, the real issue here, is whether or not Christ Jesus is really present, in a real way, in the Eucharist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessed_Sacrament

What about the doctrine of consubstantiation?
Are the other Protestants correct in thinking Holy Communion is a memorial to Jesus' death?

Holy Communion is at least a memorial, the question is if it is more than that also.

I'll put it this way. If Christ Jesus is not really present in the Eucharist, then the Eucharist is idolatry, absolutely. There isn't any wiggle room, since we actually worship the Eucharist (Adoration), just as if Christ Jesus is really present.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_adoration

And if Christ Jesus is really present in the Eucharist, then what we do is justified, and intelligent, and is not idolatry at all, but very Christian.

Matthew 18:20 KJV, "For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them."

 

[genuineoriginal]

Here's one salient point, from your source:

"All Christians, with but few minor exceptions, held the true doctrine of the Real Presence from the time of Christ until the Protestant Revolution in the sixteenth century."

EWTN, the Global Catholic Television Network, makes the claim that it is a "true" doctrine and makes the claim that all Christians (meaning only those under Roman Catholic rule) believed it.
Those are self-serving claims that have nothing behind them except the claims themselves.

Also, regarding whether the golden calf is parallel to the Eucharist, I'd say that in the former case you have the people basing their idolatry on what Aaron said, while, if Christ Jesus is not truly present in the Eucharist, that error would then be coming from a misinterpretation (a literal one) of His very own words:
Matthew 26:26 KJV, "Take, eat; this is My body."
Mark 14:22 KJV, "Take, eat: this is My body."
Luke 22:19 KJV, "This is My body .... "
1st Corinthians 11:24 KJV, "Take, eat: this is My body .... "

Yes, the false doctrine of "Real Presence" comes from a misinterpretation of what Jesus said.

if the Real Presence is idolatrous error, then it is not a very good parallel to the golden calf, imo. It would be a different type /category of error.

What new category of idolatry would you suggest?

 

[User Name]

Is the Eucharist an idol like the golden calf?

Why did the Jews send Jesus up for the death penalty?

 

[genuineoriginal]

the real issue here, is whether or not Christ Jesus is really present, in a real way, in the Eucharist.

Holy Communion is at least a memorial, the question is if it is more than that also.

I'll put it this way. If Christ Jesus is not really present in the Eucharist, then the Eucharist is idolatry, absolutely. There isn't any wiggle room, since we actually worship the Eucharist (Adoration), just as if Christ Jesus is really present.

Jesus commanded us to partake of the Holy Communion in remembrance of Him giving His body for us and Him shedding His blood for us.

Luke 22:19-20 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.​

Holy Communion unites us in fellowship with each other through the remembrance that Christ gave His body and shed His blood for us.

1 Corinthians 10:16-17 YLT 16 The cup of the blessing that we bless -- is it not the fellowship of the blood of the Christ? the bread that we break -- is it not the fellowship of the body of the Christ? 17 because one bread, one body, are we the many -- for we all of the one bread do partake.​

We are not commanded to worship the bread and the wine, and it is that worship that changes the Eucharist into idolatry.

 

[Idolater]

EWTN, the Global Catholic Television Network, makes the claim that it is a "true" doctrine and makes the claim that all Christians (meaning only those under Roman Catholic rule) believed it.

Correct.

Those are self-serving claims that have nothing behind them except the claims themselves.

'You've got some evidence showing that it was definitively the opposite, that virtually no Christians believed in the Real Presence during the Apostolic era, and in the immediately succeeding eras? Do you have that? We need something that contravenes Ignatius's obvious belief in the Real Presence, otherwise we should just trust that the bishops' explanation is the right one, and they are telling the truth, that they're only accurately transmitting to us the authentic Apostolic witness on the matter. Beowulf wasn't written down until centuries after the story was first concocted. We ought to extend these authentic pastorates (the offices, not necessarily and in all cases the officeholders, sadly) at least as much faith in them that they can keep a story straight, generation after generation, without needing a written record, since so many (relatively) bishops knew through reliable catechesis (2Ti2:2KJV) exactly what the Apostles taught. And since the Apostles were "always on," this means that what the Apostles said is what they taught. Every word of theirs, is the Word of God. You believe this same thing, which is why you believe your New Testament, because that's exactly what we're doing when we believe that what the Apostles wrote is equal in divine authority to the Septuagint /Christian Old Testament. The Septuagint was written by the Spirit, in some very critical way, the details of which are not relevant for the moment. The Point is that the Apostles all Did that. They wrote, and what they wrote is Scripture. Even what some of their friends wrote, some of that also is New Testament scripture. But not what Mark, and Luke, and Barnabas, and Silas, and Aquila, all said, was passed on, like how everything the Apostles said was passed on. Almost none of the first Gentiles who first believed in Christ, were around Judea when He walked the earth. Our Lord didn't plan on attracting a global audience. Today, if He were to come again, the whole earth's by now heard of Him, faith in Him aside for the moment. Unlike when He first came. He made some noise locally, but the pinnacle of His Life, His Passion and Resurrection, only rose to the attention to the level of "governor" or "prelate" or some "middle manager" level leader, in the Roman Empire; Pilate. No emperor ever heard of Jesus until maybe Caligula. Nero definitely heard of Jesus. And Jesus didn't write anything down, with one exception, recorded in Eusebius. So all that we know of Him in history is what others have transmitted to us, with that one aforementioned exception, which indicates that perhaps the Gospel accounts were accurate, based upon the contents of that one exception. And I'm sure that you agree with me that it confirms what we know of Him. He was aware that He had attracted a following. The Gospel says that. This one exception to the rule that He did not write anything, confirms the Gospel accounts. And it is His own teaching authority that He exerts, in me saying that this single exception to the rule, is as authoritative as Scripture, and as Sacred Tradition, and as Sweet St. Peter's chair /seat (compare Matthew 23:2 KJV). I'm doing nothing to say the fact to you. This one exception, where He wrote something down, He Himself confirmed that the account of His ministry in the Gospels, is accurate. He attracted a following. He was famous. And He knew He was famous. Self aware. Again, He didn't seek global fame the first time He was on the earth, but right here right now, it is already the direct opposite of that, and He hasn't even returned yet. He has a Wikipedia page. He was a Middle Easterner executed for insurrection, and yet a good 2-to-3 sevenths of us believe that He is God in one critical way, and in a way in which none of us, definitively, could ever copy: He rose Himself from the dead. There's only one ape that could have done that, and that ape is God Almighty Himself, in some one critical way, in which none of us is God Almighty Himself, but that Jesus is. He raised Himself from the dead. If anybody does that He's God. I cannot do that. After I die, my resurrection depends 100% upon someone else. But His depended upon Himself. So that's God, one way or the other. The only One (the LORD is One) Who can raise Himself from the dead is God (the LORD).

Yes, the false doctrine of "Real Presence" comes from a misinterpretation of what Jesus said.

As opposed to with the golden calf. They didn't 'misinterpret' what Aaron said. Aaron told them to do it, and they did it.

What new category of idolatry would you suggest?

Hardyharhar.

 

[Idolater]

Why did the Jews send Jesus up for the death penalty?

Prophecy, and free will.

 

[Idolater]

Jesus commanded us to partake of the Holy Communion in remembrance of Him giving His body for us and Him shedding His blood for us.

Luke 22:19-20 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.​

Holy Communion unites us in fellowship with each other through the remembrance that Christ gave His body and shed His blood for us.

1 Corinthians 10:16-17 YLT 16 The cup of the blessing that we bless -- is it not the fellowship of the blood of the Christ? the bread that we break -- is it not the fellowship of the body of the Christ? 17 because one bread, one body, are we the many -- for we all of the one bread do partake.​

We are not commanded to worship the bread and the wine, and it is that worship that changes the Eucharist into idolatry.

It is absolutely reasonable to worship Him. You, don't believe that He is God, nor that He could possibly be really present in Holy Communion, and that's your right to believe that, but since I differ with you on that mark, my view is that He is really present in Holy Communion, in the way that Catholics and Orthodox Christians believe the same thing; Catholics and Orthodox all together constituting 3/5 to 2/3 of all the world's Christians. If His Real Presence is true, then of course you worship the Eucharist, if not through Adoration and monstrances, then at least in partaking of the Eucharist overly solemnly, as if it is something more /other than just bread and wine. So of course the worshiping can't be ceased, and in fact encouraging more of it is actually the correct position, from within Catholicism, fyi fwiw.

Do you believe He could possibly raise Himself from the dead, without being God?

 

[clefty]

Aaron told the children of Israel that the golden calf is the God that brought them up out of the land of Egypt.

Exodus 32:2-4 DARBY 2 And Aaron said to them, Break off the golden rings that are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring [them] to me. 3 Then all the people broke off the golden rings that were in their ears, and brought [them] to Aaron. 4 And he took [them] out of their hand, and fashioned it with a chisel and made of it a molten calf: and they said, This is thy god, Israel, who has brought thee up out of the land of Egypt!​

The Catholic, Orthodox, and Episcopalian churches tell their followers that the Eucharist is the Lord Jesus Christ who died on the cross.

What is the Holy Eucharist? The Holy Eucharist is a sacrament and a sacrifice. In the Holy Eucharist, under the appearances of bread and wine, the Lord Christ is contained, offered, and received. (a) The whole Christ is really, truly, and substantially present in the Holy Eucharist. We use the words "really, truly, and substantially" to describe Christ's presence in the Holy Eucharist in order to distinguish Our Lord's teaching from that of mere men who falsely teach that the Holy Eucharist is only a sign or figure of Christ, or that He is present only by His power. (b) All Christians, with but few minor exceptions, held the true doctrine of the Real Presence from the time of Christ until the Protestant Revolution in the sixteenth century. (c) The word "Eucharist" means "Thanksgiving."

​

Is the Eucharist an idol like the golden calf?

This abomination (idolatry) makes desolate indeed as it offers false worship to another god...

Those who actually thought He meant literally to cannibilize Him walked away...John 666 clarifies these who no longer follow Him...

John 6:

66From that time on, many of His disciples turned back and no longer walked with Him

The matter needed to be addressed...

67So Jesus asked the Twelve, “Do you want to leave too?”

And Peter affirms he believed NOT in actually eating Him but:

68Simon Peter replied, “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We believe and know that You are the Holy One of God.”…

Peter did NOT say “you are the flesh of life to be eaten”.

I have actually heard catholics confirm that all flesh was made clean and thus cannibalizing Him is no issue...

The interesting thing about this superstious jewish cult of the first century is NOT that it was known to cannibalize its own god...

The church even now remains divided on whether or not the bread must be leavened (the East) or unleavened (the West)

And whether the last supper was the passover meal (the West) or not (the East) and thus further complicating the Easter thingy...which is now celebrated on two different calendars on two different days...

Rome is also in a bind as by church law the Host must be of wheat and thus it proves difficult for those who suffer celiac disease to consume the Host...

odd that ciliac disease is a biological allergic response to glutton...and not to flesh...human flesh...divine or not...one would think that having turned to flesh there would no longer be glutton...hmmmm

But because of continuing biological allergic responses to “His Flesh” the Romans must make provisions including “low gluten” flesh cakes...or even offering only the blood...of course all by special medical privilege and church permission from the pope...

Odd too that the typical tradition in the Roman church is that only the bread is offered and not the fruit of the wine...that stopped about the the time the Black Plague spread...from one unsanitary chalice mouth to mouth?

Our Master offered both bread and the cup...and it was understood as symbol or sign as when He said He is a door none looked for the handle or hinges or knocker...or as his followers do not include themselves when the recipe asks for salt...or hire themselves out as night time security lights...I mean we who are to be the light of the world..still need light at night right?

Yes it is tragic some of His disciples no longer walk with Him...but have devised false and counterfeit forms of worship...their abomination will indeed make desolate...as what is false has NO LIFE...

to whom else would we turn to? He indeed has the words of eternal life...

That WHOSOEVER believes and ate that bread of life...though they still died to their grave yet will live again...eternally

HalleluYah...

 

[genuineoriginal]

You've got some evidence showing that it was definitively the opposite, that virtually no Christians believed in the Real Presence during the Apostolic era, and in the immediately succeeding eras?

The symbology of the Lord's Supper was well known even several hundred years after the crucifixion.

EUSEBIUS: SON OF PAMPHILUS 1 - THE PROOF OF THE GOSPEL - CHAPTER 10 (written around 312 CE) As we have received a memorial of this offering which we celebrate on a table by means of symbols of His Body and saving Blood according to the laws of the new covenant, we are taught again by the prophet David to say: "5. Thou hast prepared a table before me in the face of my persecutors |. Thou hast anointed my head with oil |, and thy cup cheers me as the strongest (wine). |"​

​

The error that the symbols were really the body and blood of Jesus had been gaining supporters after 150 CE, but the doctrine of the Real Presence finds its true start in 831 CE when Paschasius Radbertus wrote On the Body and Blood of the Lord.

 

[genuineoriginal]

It is absolutely reasonable to worship Him.

Nobody said it isn't reasonable to worship Jesus, but it is unreasonable to worship the bread and the wine.

You, don't believe that He is God

Jesus claims He is the Son of God and never ever claims that He is God.

nor that He could possibly be really present in Holy Communion

Jesus is always present when believers in Him take Holy Communion, but He is not the bread and the wine that the believers eat and drink.

my view is that He is really present in Holy Communion

You have been honest in calling yourself an idolater, since you practice idolatry.

Catholics and Orthodox all together constituting 3/5 to 2/3 of all the world's Christians.

The Bible shows over and over again that the beliefs of the majority are usually damnable heresies, especially when those beliefs come from the leaders of an organized religion.

Do you believe He could possibly raise Himself from the dead, without being God?

I believe what the Bible states about who raised Jesus from the dead.

Acts 4:10 10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.​

 

[genuineoriginal]

The church even now remains divided on whether or not the bread must be leavened (the East) or unleavened (the West)

And whether the last supper was the passover meal (the West) or not (the East) and thus further complicating the Easter thingy...which is now celebrated on two different calendars on two different days...

Matthew, Mark, and Luke say that it was the Passover, John says it was before the Passover.

 

[Idolater]

Nobody said it isn't reasonable to worship Jesus, but it is unreasonable to worship the bread and the wine.

. . . unless the bread and wine Is Jesus in some way.

Jesus claims He is the Son of God and never ever claims that He is God.

I read Scripture as if "Son of God" means in some one critical way, "God." E.g. when Peter confessed Him (Mt16:16KJV), Peter meant, in some one critical way, "You are God." I know you and others, even many Trinitarians also might disagree with my reading, but that's how I read Scripture; whenever Christ Jesus is called the Son of God, He is being called God. That's my view. You've got yours, I've got mine.

Jesus is always present when believers in Him take Holy Communion, but He is not the bread and the wine that the believers eat and drink.

Because I agree with the first clause of your sentence, I ask, Is He not present in the same way, at all other times, in your view? I'm curious what you mean in that clause because it's ambiguous to me. I take that you don't agree with the Real Presence of course, that His real presence has anything to do with the elements of Holy Communion, but in what way is He really present during Holy Communion, in your view, and is it only manifested during Holy Communion, and not also at all other times?

You have been honest in calling yourself an idolater, since you practice idolatry.

In your view, yes, obviously. But we're talking about who's view is correct. So you're begging the question here.

The Bible shows over and over again that the beliefs of the majority are usually damnable heresies, especially when those beliefs come from the leaders of an organized religion.

So you're making the argument from popularity. It's a fallacy. Who or how many people believe some thing to be true, has zero bearing on the truth or falsity of that thing.

I believe what the Bible states about who raised Jesus from the dead.

Acts 4:10 10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.​

So do I. John 2:19 KJV John 10:18 KJV

I was introduced recently to someone who believes that what He meant was that, once God raised Him from the dead, then He would get up and walk around. Is that what you think He meant?

 

[genuineoriginal]

. . . unless the bread and wine Is Jesus in some way.

No, it is still unreasonable to worship the bread and the wine, even if it is Jesus in some way.

I read Scripture as if ... whenever Christ Jesus is called the Son of God, He is being called God.

Yes, you read scripture with your mind blinded by the things you were taught to believe instead of what is actually written.

Because I agree with the first clause of your sentence, I ask, Is He not present in the same way, at all other times, in your view?

Jesus is present with the believers during Holy Communion in the same way as He is present with the believers whenever they are gathered together.
There does not have to be bread and wine for Holy Communion for Jesus to be present with the believers.

Matthew 18:20 20 [JESUS]For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.[/JESUS]​

Catholics and Orthodox Christians believe the same thing; Catholics and Orthodox all together constituting 3/5 to 2/3 of all the world's Christians.

The Bible shows over and over again that the beliefs of the majority are usually damnable heresies, especially when those beliefs come from the leaders of an organized religion.

So you're making the argument from popularity. It's a fallacy. Who or how many people believe some thing to be true, has zero bearing on the truth or falsity of that thing.

Actually, the argument from popularity was your argument, your fallacy.
My point is that you can't rely upon how popular a religious doctrine is, since most of the popular religious doctrines are false teachings that lead a person to their own destruction.

 

[clefty]

No, it is still unreasonable to worship the bread and the wine, even if it is Jesus in some way.

even the orthodox insist there is the divine in the ikon...the Romans insist it is only veneration they do...

But even pagans claim they don’t actually worship the rock or tree but the power it represents...through it to its prototype or something catechistic like that...

Yes, you read scripture with your mind blinded by the things you were taught to believe instead of what is actually written.


Jesus is present with the believers during Holy Communion in the same way as He is present with the believers whenever they are gathered together.
There does not have to be bread and wine for Holy Communion for Jesus to be present with the believers.

Matthew 18:20 20 [JESUS]For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.[/JESUS]​

​

Actually, the argument from popularity was your argument, your fallacy.
My point is that you can't rely upon how popular a religious doctrine is, since most of the popular religious doctrines are false teachings that lead a person to their own destruction.

They actually blame Him His becoming incarnate for overturning and abrogating the “make no image law” and now are able to make all manner of objects and tools to assist the mass...because apparently He does need materials made from human hands for worship...and not just spirit and truth...

Daniel was right...indeed he would think to change both times and law...

 

[Idolater]

The symbology of the Lord's Supper was well known even several hundred years after the crucifixion.

EUSEBIUS: SON OF PAMPHILUS 1 - THE PROOF OF THE GOSPEL - CHAPTER 10 (written around 312 CE) As we have received a memorial of this offering which we celebrate on a table by means of symbols of His Body and saving Blood according to the laws of the new covenant, we are taught again by the prophet David to say: "5. Thou hast prepared a table before me in the face of my persecutors |. Thou hast anointed my head with oil |, and thy cup cheers me as the strongest (wine). |"​

​

The error that the symbols were really the body and blood of Jesus had been gaining supporters after 150 CE, but the doctrine of the Real Presence finds its true start in 831 CE when Paschasius Radbertus wrote On the Body and Blood of the Lord.

Ignatius is very clear in his passage concerning the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and that was in AD 107. Eusebius was familiar with Ignatius, and I don't know why he wouldn't have addressed the passage in question, if he intends to contradict what Ignatius wrote. Also, 'The Proof of the Gospel' as a whole is to me, ambiguous on the point. Yes, the word 'symbol' is employed, but also the Eucharist is referred to as a bona fide Sacrifice to God, which is only possible if the Eucharist is more than just a memorial, imo.

Also, you clearly don't take this document as a whole as authoritative in any sense, since he refers to Christ Jesus as God in the flesh right at the beginning of Chapter 1; this source for you is already to be taken with a grain of salt. idk why you'd put any stock in it.

 

[Idolater]

No, it is still unreasonable to worship the bread and the wine, even if it is Jesus in some way.

Self-evidently false. If the Eucharist is Jesus in some way, then it is obviously reasonable to worship Him in the Eucharist.

Yes, you read scripture with your mind blinded by the things you were taught to believe instead of what is actually written.

False, and begging the question. What you say is only true if you're right, which you have not established.

Jesus is present with the believers during Holy Communion in the same way as He is present with the believers whenever they are gathered together.
There does not have to be bread and wine for Holy Communion for Jesus to be present with the believers.

Matthew 18:20 20 [JESUS]For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.[/JESUS]​

​

OK.

I know you don't agree, but for the sake of clarity I inform you, that the Church's magisterium, and the Orthodox bishops, teach that Matthew 18:20 KJV concerns especially the Eucharist and the Mass.

Actually, the argument from popularity was your argument, your fallacy.

I didn't make an argument. I stated a fact.

My point is that you can't rely upon how popular a religious doctrine is [to determine its truth]

Agreed.

... most of the popular religious doctrines are false teachings that lead a person to their own destruction.

Disagreed.

For example, the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Ascension, Christ's Resurrection, that Christians when able to ought to regularly go to Mass, that salvation /membership in the Church depends upon faith alone, etc., are all popular religious doctrines.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Ignatius is very clear in his passage concerning the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and that was in AD 107. Eusebius was familiar with Ignatius, and I don't know why he wouldn't have addressed the passage in question, if he intends to contradict what Ignatius wrote.

Eusebius was stating what he knew and understood.
Making those statements does not require refuting the statements of others that you don't support.

the Eucharist is referred to as a bona fide Sacrifice to God, which is only possible if the Eucharist is more than just a memorial, imo.

Are you aware of the bread sacrifices from the law?

Leviticus 7:11-15 NIV 11 “‘These are the regulations for the fellowship offering anyone may present to the Lord: 12 “‘If they offer it as an expression of thankfulness, then along with this thank offering they are to offer thick loaves made without yeast and with olive oil mixed in, thin loaves made without yeast and brushed with oil, and thick loaves of the finest flour well-kneaded and with oil mixed in. 13 Along with their fellowship offering of thanksgiving they are to present an offering with thick loaves of bread made with yeast. 14 They are to bring one of each kind as an offering, a contribution to the Lord; it belongs to the priest who splashes the blood of the fellowship offering against the altar. 15 The meat of their fellowship offering of thanksgiving must be eaten on the day it is offered; they must leave none of it till morning.​