This is the thread devoted to the debate that Milenka and Calvin have agreed to undertake after a bit of discussion through email exchanges. The resolution to this debate will be: "Does the eucharist literally become the body and blood of Jesus Christ." Milenka will be taking the affirmative while Calvin will be taking the negative.



The rules for the debate are as follows:



1. This is a civil debate - there will be no insult hurling.
2. This debate will last five rounds.
3. Unfamiliar terms will be defined upon request.
4. All sources will be cited properly.

I would like to start defining transubstantiation.
Wikipedia:
(from Latin transsubstantiatio) is the change of the substance of bread and wine into that of the body and blood of Christ, the change that according to the belief of the Roman Catholic Church occurs in the Eucharist. (In this context, substance is a philosophical, not a chemical term. It indicates what something is in itself)
Webster:
1. The Roman Catholic doctrine that the whole substance of the bread and the wine changes into the substance of the body and blood of Christ when consecrated in the Eucharist.
2. An act that changes the form or character or substance of something.
Catechism of the Catholic Church: The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."(1376)

Catholic church bases it’s beliefs on not only scripture but tradition as well.
Our firm believe in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist comes from both of these sources.
Before the year 500 AD Christians took the real presence for granted. No one had denied it and there was no debate among Christians on this teaching even when their lives were threatened due to this and they were called cannibals, christians still got together to receive the Eucharist.
I will however focus in scripture since I understand those who are not catholic give no major importance to tradition of the church.
There is so much basis for this believe that it would be endless to post every passage that relates to the topic. I will post those that I consider more appropriate for this first attempt to explain our belief and mention a few more, I will also continue posting more scripture as the debate requires it.
There are 3 main biblical themes that support the catholic position:
1)the promise of the eucharist,
2) the institution of the eucharist,
3) the practice of the eucharist.

1)The promise of the Eucharist:
Jesus promises the eucharist in John 6, 32-71. For right now I will only highlight a few verses of this passage. On verse 51, Jesus is equating the bread to his flesh.
“the bread that I will give IS my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
The people listening understood him literally. Jews, disciples and every other person listening to him did.
On john 6, 66 many of his disciples left him because of this teaching. “ From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” I would like to note that not just some people of the crowd left, but his disciples.
Wikipedia: A disciple (from the Latin discipulus, a pupil) is one who receives instruction from another; a scholar; a learner; especially, a follower who has learned to believe in the truth of the doctrine of his teacher, and implies that the pupil is under the discipline of, and "understands", his teacher; an adherent in doctrine.[1]
Webster: Someone who believes and helps to spread the doctrine of another
Catechism of the catholic church: those who accepted jesus’ message to follow him are his disciple. Jesus associated his disciples with his own life, reveled the mystery of the kingdom to the disciples and gave them a share in his mission, his joy, and sufferings.
Jesus far from correcting them, like he had done before when there was a misunderstanding he asks to the twelve on verse 67: “Will ye also go away?”. Jesus describes himself as bread 7 times in john chapter 6 (33, 35, 48, 50, twice in 51, and 48) and says that one must eat/feed on his flesh also 7 times (50, 51, twice in 53, 56, 57, and 58) and all through the chapter there is no hint of symbolism. Furthermore “to eat the flesh” or “drink the blood” was a phrase commonly used by the Jews. However it was used to mean betray and persecute. This can be found in
Isaiah 49, 26: “And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob“
Micah 3, 3: “Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron.”
Rev 17, 6: “And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.”
Rev 17, 16: “And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.”

The institution:
The institution of the Eucharist takes place during the last supper. There are 2 main reasons to support that the bread and wine consumed on the ;ast super were jesus’ body and blood.
1) Jesus’ words,
2) the Passover fulfillment

1)Jesus’ words:
Mathew 26, 26-28: “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”
Mark 14, 22-24: “And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.”
Luke 22, 19-20: “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. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”
1 Cor 11, 24-25: “And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.”
There are several words in Aramaic that mean represent however the word “is” is used by all four authors inspired by the Holy Spirit.

2)The Passover fulfillment:
On the feast of the Passover the Jews celebrate the liberation from Egypt. This is described in Exodus 12, 5-8. Thy were to take an unblemished lamb, slaughter it, mark their house with its blood and eat the lamb.
Jesus is the lamb of God, (John 1, 29; 1Cor 5, 7) and the last supper was a Passover (Mark 14, 12-16; Mathew 26, 17-19; Luke 22, 7-8, 11, 13-14)
Jesus was fore shadowed as the Passover lamb described in exodus
Jesus is the new unblemished lamb and through his blood people are saved just like through the blood of the unblemished lamb the first born sons of the Jews were saved in Egypt. If Jesus is the lamb and the last super was a pass over, the commandment of God is not over with the slaughter of the lamb. The Jews of Egypt had not only to mark their doors with the blood of the lamb but they also had to eat the lamb just as we are to receive the real body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist.
PRACTICE:
Most of the proof for practice is in the tradition of the church. From early writing like the ones of Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, etc.
However it can be found in scripture. In 1 Cor 10, 16 Paul states as something that is already understood that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” In 1 Cor 11, 27-30 he speaks very harshly to those who eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily. “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.” How can a person be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if all they did was eat bread and drink wine as a representation of Christ’s body and blood? This would be like being found guilty of a violent crime by simply harming a photograph of someone. What is Paul meaning by “ not discerning the Lord’s body”? is one really to be damnated for eating and drinking symbolic bread and wine?

There is no reason to take Jesus' words literally in John 6. Jesus was a teacher who was not shy of using parables and metaphors. Jesus declared, “I am the gate” (John 10:9) and “I am the true vine” (John 15:1). These statements come from John as well, yet I do not see Catholics trying to take these in a literal manner. God is called a rock (Psalms 18:3), a bird (Psalms 63:7), and a tower (Proverbs 18:10) which are all meant to be understood as figurative language so that we can comprehend the infinite.

Furthermore, among all the figurative language used in the Bible, ingestion is one of the most popular. Psalm 34:9 tells us to taste the Lord, in Revelation John is told to eat a scroll, and it turned his stomach sour (Revelation 10:9-10), Peter tells us that new believers are newborns who long for spiritual milk (1 Peter 2:2), and Hebrews speaks of Christians who are mature in their faith eat solid food (5:14) and of others who taste the gifts of heaven (6:4).

This entire passage in John 6 is rather hilarious to me. Jesus' disciples come to Him asking for the bread from heaven that Psalms 78:24, 25 refer to (v 30-31). Jesus responds by telling them that the bread of life is the one who comes from heaven to give life to the world (v 32-33). His disciples, committing the same mistake as Nicodemus (John 3:4) and the Samaritan woman (John 4:15), took Jesus in a purely physical sense and asked for this bread. Jesus responds in saying that He is the bread that has come from heaven, He is the one that gives eternal life to the world. All who believe in Him will never go hungry, He will raise them up at the last day (v 35-40). At this point his disciples have a similar reaction as of the Israelites in the wilderness who grumble against Moses and Aaron (Exodus 16:7; 17:3; Numbers 11:1). They question how Jesus could have come down from heaven, which is one of the most crucial beliefs in establishing that Jesus was the Messiah (v 41-42). Once again Jesus must state that He is the bread from heaven and that all who believe in Him have everlasting life. The bread from heaven is his flesh which he will give up on the cross (v 47-51).

Even still His disciples did not understand. They ask how Jesus could give them His flesh to eat (v 52). In his response Jesus' words finally hit home and the parallel makes sense. You eat corporeal bread to live physically, but you must eat (believe) spiritual bread (Jesus) to live forever. (v 53-58). The disgust of the disciples was not from thinking that they were to literally eat his flesh, but that they must simply believe in Him for salvation (v 60). Jesus goes on to confirm that the words he has spoken are of spirit, that to believe in Him is to eat of His flesh. Note that Jesus knew that some that followed Him did not believe (v 61-65). We then get to verse 66 where some of his disciples left him and followed no more. Notice how that they remained through all the confusion of cannibalism, but once it came to believing they left. Jesus turns to the Twelve and asks if they are to leave as well (v 67), but no, they believe (v 69).

So then we can see that if one is to quote this passage out of context they can easily make a case for the Catholic tradition of the eucharist. However a simple reading of it shows beyond all doubt that Jesus was not referring to literally eating his flesh and blood, but believing in Him as the savior of the world. For what reasons would Jesus tell the unsaved Jews about the eucharist? Especially if it was to be given later to the church, a church that had not been instituted yet. It's because He was not; He was showing them that belief in Him is means for everlasting life, that He is the Messiah, the bread of life sent from heaven. I believe that the rest of the verses cited as proof of transubstantiation fall into place when John 6 is understood in its context. It should be noted that the the confusion here further expounds the problem of blurring justification (God's once for all time legal standing) and sanctification (our continuous cooperative perfection) by the Catholic Church, but that is beyond the scope of this debate.

Furthermore, if we are to take this passage literally then at the Last Supper Jesus was holding His own body. The doctrine of the Incarnation says that the Son took on a human nature. To take on a human or finite form is to be limited by space and time. If we are to believe that Christ's human nature was in two places at the same time, then we have denied the Incarnation. The same problem faces the Catholic Church today for if we are to follow the belief logically then Christ's human nature is omnipresent. This is a flat out rejection of one of the most important Christian doctrines.

On another note, in the Bible there are three words used for miracles: sign, wonder, and power. To give a few examples: Moses performed signs in front of the Pharaoh when he turned his rod into a serpent (Exodus 4:3) and when his hand became leprous (Exodus 4:6-7). When Jesus and the apostles performed supernatural acts they were called miraculous signs (Acts 2:43; 14:3; 15:12). Power is used to refer to raising the dead (Philippians 3:10); Christ's virgin birth (Luke 1:35); and even the creation of the heaven's and earth (Jeremiah 10:12; cf. Jeremiah 27:5; 32:17; 51:15). Finally, wonder is used of Jesus' miracles (John 4:48; Acts 2:22), that of the apostles, and of Moses (Acts 7:36). You will not find any of these words associated with communion in the New Testament. Thus, we cannot posit that a miracle was in effect here and that Christ's words were to be taken literally.

To further drive the point home, Greg Bahnsen says that “What we call 'miracles' are more than amazing events, more than powerful occurrences, more than parabolic theological lessons. What distinguishes the "miraculous" event from all these other grand things which happen is its specifically supernatural character. The miracle is an extraordinary and awe-inspiring event which in its character (or sometimes in its timing) cannot be explicated by known natural principles or controlled by mere human beings. That is its super-natural quality.”

So then we see that miracles serve a purpose and that they are a knowable supernatural event. If we look at the Roman Catholic Mass today we will observe that there is absolutely no evidence of the miraculous. The doctrine of transubstantiation is not detectable, there is no epistemological basis for it. It is empirically unknowable and a matter of accepting on pure faith. Following the example set by the Roman Catholic Church anyone could claim that a natural event is a miracle for there is no way to know by observation. I could claim that my chicken teriyaki just became the substance of God; that a player piano was actually being jammed on by the ghost of Napoleon Bonaparte; that goblins were turning the hands on my watch. So then we see that Rome, in declaring the Mass as a miracle goes against everything the Bible teaches that a miracles is. If we are not able to trust our God given senses then how could the apostles have trusted theirs when Jesus told them to look, touch, and see His resurrected body (Luke 24:39).

I would just like to touch on the claim made that before 500 A.D. no one doubted the “real presence” in the Eucharist. In the Didache it refers to the Lord's Supper as simply spiritual food and drink. It does not state that the elements of them are changed in any way (Didache 10:3). Tertullian speaks of speaks of the bread and wine in the eucharist as symbols, he states in Against Marcion 3.19 that these are not literally Christ's body and blood. Eusebius of Caesareas also clearly states that they are meant to be understood in a spiritual sense (On the Theology of the Church iii.11, 12). The clear descriptions of the eucharist being transformed into the elements of Christ did not emerge until around the third century when human works began to be used as means of justification. The claim that from the time of Christ all people were practicing transubstantiation is unfounded. Furthermore, of all the powers and miraculous signs given to the apostles turning bread and wine into the substance of Christ was not one of them.

Finally, I notice that there was an appeal to the Passover for the eucharist. I'm not exactly following so hopefully the thought can be further extrapolated on. I would like to note that the Passover was a memorial (Exodus 12:14) of the night in the Egypt (Exodus 12:1-13), it did not serve to repeat the event. I say this because of a suspicion of where it might be leading.

---------

Sources:

Bahnsen, Greg. The Problem of Miracles. www.monergism.com

Calvin, John. Calvin's Commentary. www.monergism.com

Geisler, Norman. Systematic Theology: Volume I. Bloomington: Bethany House Publishers, 2002.

Geisler, Norman. Systematic Theology: Volume IV. Bloomington: Bethany House Publishers, 2005.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible. United States: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.

Webster, William. The Church of Rome at the Bar of History. Finland: WS Bookwell, 1995.

Didache. www.spurgeon.org

There is no reason to take Jesus' words literally in John 6. Jesus was a teacher who was not shy of using parables and metaphors. Jesus declared, “I am the gate” (John 10:9) and “I am the true vine” (John 15:1). These statements come from John as well, yet I do not see Catholics trying to take these in a literal manner. God is called a rock (Psalms 18:3), a bird (Psalms 63:7), and a tower (Proverbs 18:10) which are all meant to be understood as figurative language so that we can comprehend the infinite.


even though it is true that in many opportunities jesus made use of parables, john 6 nor the last supper is one of them. First of all psalms and proverbs are completely different literary works from the gospel of John. Psalms and proverbs are both mostly in poetical form and the use of metaphors can be assumed unlike the gospels which are written in a more narrative form, specially the gospel of John. Of the 4 gospels, John is the only one that does not retell any parables. The only two “stories” that may be considered as parables are those you just mentioned. The one about the vine and branches in chapter 15, and the images of the good shepherd in chapter 10. Second, on those passages, the metaphoric intention is made explicit unlike in john 6. This is why you don’t see Catholics trying to take these literally: John 10, 6 reads, “This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.” the vine passage is not as explicit however the hint of its figurative meaning can be found in John 15, 4 “Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. ” in this verse he is stating a comparison. We are as the braches of the vine, but not the branches of the vine and we are to abide in him not in the vine. Furthermore in the passage about the vine, no one asks, “how can this man claim to be a plant?“ in other words, no one understood him literally like the disciples did in john 6. The entire context is symbolic. Jesus used the fruit to describe a person’s work and he uses a gardener to describe the Father. The context in which jesus said the bread was his body was during the most sacred event for the jewish people. Jeuss was not holding a vine in his hands when he said “I am the vine” but in fact, he was holding the bread when he said “this is my body”.




Furthermore, among all the figurative language used in the Bible, ingestion is one of the most popular. Psalm 34:9 tells us to taste the Lord, in Revelation John is told to eat a scroll, and it turned his stomach sour (Revelation 10:9-10), Peter tells us that new believers are newborns who long for spiritual milk (1 Peter 2:2), and Hebrews speaks of Christians who are mature in their faith eat solid food (5:14) and of others who taste the gifts of heaven (6:4).


This is true, I think I mentioned this already though. But if eat my flesh and drink my blood was to be understood figuratively, then Jesus was commanding his disciples to betray and persecute him. Isaiah 49, 26: “And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob“
Micah 3, 3: “Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron.”
Rev 17, 5-6: “And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus : and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.”
Rev 17, 16: “And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.” I’m sorry but if Jesus was actually making use of the popular figurative use of ingestion (more specifically: eat my flesh and drink my blood) like you said it wouldn’t make much sense to me



This entire passage in John 6 is rather hilarious to me. Jesus' disciples come to Him asking for the bread from heaven that Psalms 78:24, 25 refer to (v 30-31). Jesus responds by telling them that the bread of life is the one who comes from heaven to give life to the world (v 32-33). His disciples, committing the same mistake as Nicodemus (John 3:4) and the Samaritan woman (John 4:15), took Jesus in a purely physical sense and asked for this bread. Jesus responds in saying that He is the bread that has come from heaven, He is the one that gives eternal life to the world. All who believe in Him will never go hungry, He will raise them up at the last day (v 35-40). At this point his disciples have a similar reaction as of the Israelites in the wilderness who grumble against Moses and Aaron (Exodus 16:7; 17:3; Numbers 11:1). They question how Jesus could have come down from heaven, which is one of the most crucial beliefs in establishing that Jesus was the Messiah (v 41-42). Once again Jesus must state that He is the bread from heaven and that all who believe in Him have everlasting life. The bread from heaven is his flesh which he will give up on the cross (v 47-51).

Here you are already making the assumption that he is speaking symbolically and everybody up until a few hundred years after his death understood him wrong. you have not yet prooved this. what if everybody actually understood him right? What if they understood him literally because he was speaking literally? but it was just too hard to see Christ in a piece of bread that looks and tastes like bread because after transubstantiation the bread and wine do not change in appearance but only in substance. What if they just couldn’t accept this teaching just like many people now cant, just like there many catholics that have trouble accepting this as well. What if he kept repeating and repeating the same thing without attempting to correct their misunderstanding because there was no misunderstanding?

Even still His disciples did not understand. They ask how Jesus could give them His flesh to eat (v 52). In his response Jesus' words finally hit home and the parallel makes sense. You eat corporeal bread to live physically, but you must eat (believe) spiritual bread (Jesus) to live forever. (v 53-58). The disgust of the disciples was not from thinking that they were to literally eat his flesh, but that they must simply believe in Him for salvation (v 60).

In verse 52 it was not the disciples that asked him again. It was the jews. Who were always trying to give him trouble: “The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” and where do you get that it finally made sense to them? This is what follows right after jesus’ response on verses 53 through 58 as you said: 59 “These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” that the response “finally hit home and the parallel made sense” you are just making up. There is no hint of this in the verses that follow.

Jesus goes on to confirm that the words he has spoken are of spirit, that to believe in Him is to eat of His flesh. Note that Jesus knew that some that followed Him did not believe (v 61-65). We then get to verse 66 where some of his disciples left him and followed no more. Notice how that they remained through all the confusion of cannibalism, but once it came to believing they left. Jesus turns to the Twelve and asks if they are to leave as well (v 67), but no, they believe (v 69).

Jesus does say that the words he has spoken are spirit but you are assuming that spirit means symbolic, and that is huge assumption. Saying something is spirit to mean it is symbolic is nowhere in the bible. In fact John 4, 24 states: “ God is a Spirit”. this surely doesn’t mean that God is symbolic does it? When Jesus says in John 6, 63 : “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing” he clearly doesn’t mean his flesh he says the flesh as opposed to verse 54 where he says my flesh speaking about the bread. Him saying that his flesh is of no avail would contradict his previous remarks about eating his flesh to have eternal life, and even the need for the sacrifice of his flesh in the cross. What we understand he is trying to say with this statement is not to count on only a fleshly understanding (like how can god made himself present in a piece of bread) but an understanding aided by the holy spirit


pd: i know i have not yet replied to the argument about "miracles" i just didnt want to delay this anymore. i have to go to work and i am not sure when i will be able to sit here and look for an answer to that. i have to confess it is the first time i hear that arguement against the real presence and it will probably demand some extra time.

To avoid unnecessary arguments on if John 6 should be taken literally or not I am going to refrain from responding to the contrasting of John 6 to other figurative passages. I feel that from that point of view one will just have to agree to disagree because it can be taken either way. However, Milenka does attempt to show that taking John 6 figuratively will lead to Jesus stating that we should betray him. I do not see how this follows; the Bible can use ingestion as a metaphor in different ways, which is made obvious within the context of the passage.

I am also confused on the response where Milenka states that I confused spirit to mean symbolic. This seems like equivocation to me: 'God is spirit' is quite different from saying that, 'my words are of spirit.' In the former it means that God is immaterial, in the latter it means his words are not to be taken literal. Once again, when a word, phrase, or metaphor is used one way in the Bible, it is not ment to always be taken that way. Context dictates how something is to be understood.

Furthermore, if we are to take Jesus' words literally here then we have a direct contradiction in the passage. In John 6:29 Jesus states that one must believe in order to be saved. After which his followers ask Him for a sign, such as God providing manna in the desert, to show that He is the one God has sent (which I may note seems to show that this discourse was conditional of the crowd's question, not an actual dogma he was trying to establish). If we are to take Jesus words literally then Jesus was saying that believing and eating His flesh are required for eternal life. Therefore, this entire passage is in contradiction from Milenka's interpritation.

On the basis of what I have shown I feel that taking this passage as literal leads to problems with the rest of Scripture, Orhthodox doctrines, miracles, and epistemology. Problems that I believe are without a resolution. Seeing as taking it as figurative does not present these issues and with no other options avaiable, I can only conclude that Jesus was talking about believing not Transubstantiation.

Im sorry it has taken me so long to reply. Ive had a lot going on. But anyway, continuing with the discussion. In the first paragraph you state that the bible can use ingestion as a metaphor in different ways. I agree with you there. Ingestion such as anything else we can think about can be used in countless ways. I was simply trying to point out the ways ingestion had been used before. Maybe this time ingestion is used to mean have faith there is no way to know for sure. That ingestion has been used in several occasions to mean betray, doesnt necessarily mean that in this occasion it means the same. It just is more likely. All we have to interpret the bible other than the holy spirit, is the bible itself and the way it uses metaphors and other figures of speech. Unless there is other stronger evidence that proves otherwise I will be inclined to think that Jesus was not speaking metaphorically.
About spirit meaning symbolic, again the reference I use to interpret the bible is the bible. If spirit is never used in the bible to mean symbolic it doesnt mean that this can not be an exception it just means that it is not likely. For me to say that it is an exception there should be strong evidence than simply filling in the blanks
Lastly, I do not see how 6, 29 contradicts my interpretation. Please explain.

I feel I have given several reasons from Bibilical exegesis to simple reasoning for why the Bible cannot be taken literally here:

Jesus speaks in metaphors quite often.

Ingestion is one of the more frequent examples of the allegory in the Bible.

(Neither of those establish my position, they simply tip the scales a little more)

This passage is very important in establishing who Jesus is, changing subject matter to the Catholic doctrine of Transubsantiation takes away from that, to the point where it nullifies it.

It's simply out of context.

Denies the Incarnatation and Christ's human nature.

Goes against the Biblical definition of a miracle, and destroys the possibility of falsifying other miracle claims.

Renders empirical means for truth useless for the Christian.

The doctrine did not become specifically stated until well after the fact.

In verse 51 Jesus states that, "If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever." There are no conditionals placed on this statement. If we are to take it literally then anyone who eats of this bread will live forever. Jesus pushes and pushes the fact and especially in verses 26-29 that to have eternal life one is to believe. I do not know how much clearer it can get. Jesus is the manna sent down from heaven and he who believes in him will never perish, but have eternal life. Jesus does not say, "If you either believe or eat this bread, then you will have eternal life, " nor, "eat this bread and believe to have eternal life." For, it is belief and trust in Him that shall justify us before God. Christ, and Christ alone is the manna sent down from heaven, and he who believe in Him, shall have eternal life.

I would like to refer to John 4 and the Samaritan woman. The woman had come to get water from the well, but here we see that Jesus offered her living water; water that would quench her thirst forever. Ravi Zacharias eloquently says that:

The transaction was fascinating. She hadcome with a bucket. He sent her back with a spring of living water.
She had come as a reject. He sent her back being accepted by God Himself.
She came wounded. He sent her back whole.
She came laden with questions. He sent her back as a source for answers.
She came living with a life of quiet desperation. She ran back overflowing with hope.
The disciples missed it all. It was lunchtime for them.¹

Emphasis added.

Jesus did not give her some special water that he miraculously changed. He gave her the answer to the universal yearning for spiritual truth (by contrasting it with the universal hunger for food, John 4:32-35).

Funny how the disciples missed it. Funny how they kept asking and questioning the temporal aspect of it. Funny how not long after Jesus performed the miracle of feeding the five thousand. Funny how just after that Jesus offered them the manna from heaven. Funny how they didnt get it the first time around, but the second time, they believed.

Sadly, by Scripture mining for verses that can back the traditions and doctrines of the Catholic Church one ends up ruining the truths and messages of Scripture. There is absolutely no room to work Transubsantianton into the Bible unless one is not out to read what it says, but what they want it to say.


-----------

1 Ravi Zacharias, Jesus Among Other Gods (Nashville: W Publishing Group, 2000), 85.