Catholic and Protestant DEBATE The Eucharist w/ Dr. Brett Salkeld & Dr. Steven Nemes

[@pintswithaquinas]

Hungry for more?? Watch my debate with Cameron Bertuzzi on the Eucharist here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZqXdhGZ9iLWkbdU Also checkout this vid I did arguing for the Catholic position on the Eucharist: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJPUqauGqc-nrZI&t

[@FernandoRodriguez-mk3bz]

@YAJUN YUAN I have some questions, Did Moses help the Israelites escape slavery with his own power or God's? Who gave the power to Moses? Why did God entrusted Moses and why did God give him the power? In the same way, God empowers a consecrated priest to transform bread into his body and wine into his blood (in the person of Christ). And if God gave the power can we contradict that?

[@FernandoRodriguez-mk3bz]

I'm just using a scenario to better comprehend that if God wants to do it he will do it. "This is what God does". Indeed, the Son of God, true God from true God, shed his divine splendour: "he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men; and being found in human form he humbled himself..., even unto death on a cross" (cf. Phil 2:6ff.). God, as the Fathers say, worked the sacrum commercium, the sacred exchange: he took on what was ours, so that we might receive what was his and become similar to God. 'In persona Christi' This theology of Baptism returns in a new way and with a new insistence in priestly Ordination. Just as in Baptism an "exchange of clothing" is given, an exchanged destination, a new existential communion with Christ, so also in priesthood there is an exchange: in the administration of the sacraments, the priest now acts and speaks "in persona Christi'. In the sacred mysteries, he does not represent himself and does not speak expressing himself, but speaks for the Other, for Christ.

[@FernandoRodriguez-mk3bz]

@YAJUN YUAN 1 Corinthians 11:29 They arethe Guardians of this Holy mystery. The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone, which rests upon Divine authority. Hence, on Luke 22:19: "This is My body which shall be delivered up for you," Cyril says: "Doubt not whether this be true; but take rather the Saviour's words with faith; for since He is the Truth, He lieth not."

[@FernandoRodriguez-mk3bz]

@YAJUN YUAN We can go back and forth with this discussion, but everyone can receive our lord in the Eucharistic A soonest they are baptized and are not in mortal sin or if they are they will need to confess their sin and do penance they can go back to our lord but if they receive him in the state of Mortal sin is a sacrilegious because this sacrament is the body, soul, and Divinity of our lord Jesus Christ that's what I mean when I said the Priest is the Guardians of this holy Mystery. He is not going to be pointing fingers who can or can't receive our lord it has to be in each one of us to be sure we are not in mortal sin as Saint Paul said here (1 Corinthians 11:28 God bless.

[@FernandoRodriguez-mk3bz]

Is much more complex that this, I'm just giving you a beginning of an answer but I'll invite you to learn more about this about the Catholic church. As a philosopher said: "the true knowledge of knowing is when you think you know everything at the end you don't know nothing " Thank you! God bless.

[@GratiaPrima_]

For years as a Baptist whenever we took “The Lord’s Supper,” taught as symbolic, I heard ringing in my ears every time I ate the bread and drank the grape juice. Always wondered why. It happened Every. Single. Time. Never even knew anyone taught “Real Presence” until I met my Catholic husband. First time I went to Mass and heard bells ringing during the Eucharistic prayer, I got my answer of why I’d been hearing the ringing all those years. I was being called to the Eucharist.

[@samlebricoleur8532]

thats beautifull!

[@michaelaratnam6517]

Did you mean you literally heard a "ringing" sound???🤔

[@einsigne]

Beautiful

[@jotink1]

That sounds real to you and those who agree with the real presence but it is not useful in determining the truth about the Eucharist. When I attend the Lords Supper I am in union through the elements with Christ's suffering and united with those I am taking the elements, with.

[@ToxicPea]

I’ve never heard ringing, but I’ve always felt a pulsing amount of dopamine circulating out from my heart to the rest of my body whenever I’ve been in the presence of the Eucharist.

[@zekdom]

11:01, 11:18 - Catholic position 13:26, 16:45, 18:26, 32:35, 34:33 - Nemes’ position 15:08 - clarifying Zwingli’s position 20:50 - the Eucharist and the Gospel 22:31 - Salkeld jumps in 25:02, 25:33 - Salkeld addresses the wedding ring analogy 36:00, 36:25, 37:36 - Salkeld and church history

[@housecry]

Thank you, for doing this as a dialogue and not a debate. Could you invite Dr. Nemes and Dr. Salkeld again? I appreciate the cordiality and I'd like to hear more.

[@BeySim1490]

Weak argument he seems lostw

[@hankkruse4660]

I read Brett Salkeld's book on Transubstantiation. It helped me to review my assumptions on the Eucharist & led our family to leave the Evangelical Church & become a Catholic Christian.

[@wprothwell]

His book is fantastic. I can't recommend it enough. Although I recommend it with the same caveat that was brought up in this debate: Brett doesn't focus on the biblical exegesis or a review of early church fathers. If you want that kind of first principles explanation, go read Brant Pitre or Robert Barron's respective books on the Eucharist. But if you are already sold on some sort of "real presence," the book is awesome at explaining what Transubstantiation means, how and why the Church ended up there, and defends that view from the competing proposals of various Reformers (while also being ecumenical in outreach and showing where there is overlap).

[@TruthHasSpoken]

also an A+ book is Brandt Pitre's Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist.

[@annhicks9548]

Praise God for his blessings to you, your family, and our Catholic family. Welcome home! May you enjoy the fullness of the faith all your life.

[@theRockSalter]

Happy are those who are called to his supper.

[@josephcandito]

A beautiful and enlightened discussion. Great content. The metaphysical differences underlying the views of the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist became increasingly clear as the discussion progressed. This was something very different than the usual contrasts between Catholics and Protestants in Eucharistic theology. Love the channel.

[@Miatpi]

Always welcome to have Dr. Nemes on the channel. I enjoy his thoughtful way of thinking about these topics and these two hours were a ton of fun.

[@Miatpi]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes I've checked your channel and I have a bit of a hate love regarding your recent dicussion with Suan: I very much enjoyed the talk, but hated that it weren't longer lol. Being a Catholic myself, and quite a fan of the arguments Suan presents, I would love to see you two discussing whether one should read Matt 16 from the context of rabbinic Judanism (or something along those lines... I'm sure I'm wording it badly but I think you understand what I'm getting at). You hinted atthe end of the discussion that you maybe would do one, and I just want to let you know that at least one of your subscribers would look foreward to it. Bless!

[@JP_517]

1:13:54 “if Christ isn’t really present, what are we doing”? Definitely a question I’m wrestling with.

[@gailstone1636]

This Catholic theologian is very confusing with his words,I believe in the presence, Christ was clear ,but people like Brett confuse the sheep,these days the word gymnastics can be used to permit all sorts of wrongs:(...

[@catholicmama1572]

Love the debates on this channel!!! Thank you! :)

[@j0nb0y5]

The tricky part about having theological discussions with Protestants is there are so many denominations and they have so many different ways of understanding the Bible and christianity. This is actually one of the reason why I converted to being a Roman Catholic.

[@arminius504]

Not much different with Roman Catholics at least in my country Germany. You can get any interpretation because who interprets the interpreters and dogmas? Same problem.

[@computationaltheist7267]

@@arminius504 Are you an Arminian?

[@xXRAKKAXx]

@@arminius504 A more honest question is "What is truth?" Because if no one can explain anything, no matter how well or clear it is written, then we're in deeper trouble than we think.

[@adifferentangle7064]

​@@xXRAKKAXxThat's why the word is written in the words of Jesus Christ himself. There isn't a single problem you can't solve by going back to Jesus's own words. Every single problem is solved in one phrase: "love each other as I have loved you". From that sentence alone all of protestantism falls flat on its face, by simply asking the question "how did jesus love us?". More and more I'm starting to realise the reason why the Bible - Gods word and Jesus word - is the way it is, and it's entirely reductive. Every moral dilemma, every dogmatic argument, every question of God and existence is solved with Jesus's one commandment. Because the answer to "How did jesus love us?" is answered simply. He showed his love by doing Gods work. Through this everything is answered. You cannot take any other position on the Eucharist than that the bread is flesh and the wine is blood, in actuality, if you take Jesus's words as true. It is the one time he stops and says, "no, seriously, no joke. I'm being 💯 serious" when discussing the matter of flesh and blood. So anyone who disagrees doesn't follow jesus commandment.

[@xXRAKKAXx]

@@adifferentangle7064 You speak strongly about this, much respect. What is position on the papacy?

[@brettsalkeld9735]

Because Dr. Nemes is a phenomenologist, as I prepared for this conversation, I went back and looked at an article by Robert Sokolowski that I had first read when writing my book. Sokolowski is one of the more important Catholic phenomenologists. I want to share this fairly substantial quote from his article “The Eucharist and Transubstantiation.” I thought that just reading it during the conversation itself might be too much, but it really captures what I was trying to say at the end of the video about transubstantiation’s relationship with a whole Christian worldview. Here is Sokolowski’s description of the worldview in which transubstantiation makes sense (he has just described to other worldviews concerning the relationship between matter and spirit, hence his description of this one as “third”): “Matter exists, but it has come into being through a personal action of God. “Before” there was matter, there was and is God, who is spirit and life. The personal dimension, in this viewpoint, does not arise from matter, nor does it merely accompany the impersonal and the material, but rather it brings it into being. Matter and all created being might not have been, and they exist because of something like a personal choice. The eternal in some sense “precedes” the temporal and causes it to be. In this biblical understanding, the divine choice to create was carried out in sheer generosity or charity, under no pressure and under no need for improvement. The generosity of Creation is the backdrop for the humility of the Incarnation and the charity of the Eucharist. In this third viewpoint, then, the personal or spiritual dimension precedes and causes the material. Faith in the Eucharist as embodying and presenting the glorified Christ clearly can be held only against the background of the third understanding of matter and spirit. It would not be possible in the first two viewpoints, not even in the one that mixes matter and spirit as two necessary components of the world. The Eucharist must be seen against the setting of Creation, which in turn becomes a context for the Incarnation, in which the eternal and almighty Creator enters into what he has made an becomes part of it. He then continues his presence in this creation in a eucharistic and sacramental manner. The time and space of the Eucharist are established by the entry of the eternal and transcendant into the created world. The Eucharist itself, because it would not be possible except against the background of this understanding of spirit and matter, is a perpetual reminder of the transcendence and power of God, which manifested themselves most fully not by spectacular cosmic effects but by the life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus the Lord. (emphasis added) The Real Presence in the Eucharist is therefore not just the concealed presence of one worldly substance under the appearance of another, but the presence of the full mystery of God’s being and work, the mystery hidden from all ages and now made manifest to us, the point of the universe and of creation. It is this presence, this glory, that is the substance of the Eucharist and the core of the doctrine of Transubstantiation.” From Robert Sokolowski, “The Eucharist and Transubstantiation,” In Christian Faith and Human Understanding: Studies on the Eucharist, Trinity, and the Human Person. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2006. Quote from pp. 102-103.

[@ralfbettker-cuza7432]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes Dear Dr. Nemes, I wonder what Dr. Edith Stein, a phenomenologist par excellence, disciple of the founder of phenomenology Edmund Husserl himself, would have said to this debate. Saint Edith Stein, who died as you know in Auschwitz as Teresia Benedicta a Cruce, a Carmelite nun, shows undoubtedly, in my humble opinion, that phenomenology can intellectually sound lead to catholicism - another great example would be Dietrich von Hildebrandt.

[@jefftravilla]

The struggle I have with these types of arguments is that they seem like such a wild divergence from what Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of me”… not, “and when you do this, I will use it as one of relatively few opportunities to transcend the veil between heaven and earth in order for you to experience my presence and saving grace by actually transforming wine and bread into the spiritual substance of myself.” I don’t understand why we feel so strongly about overcomplicating this. Obviously I’m not a theologian, but Jesus’ words at the Last Supper are some of the least ambiguous parts of the Bible. Jesus’ whole deal was to simplify Grace and offer it to all. Complicated views about the saving power of unfalsifiable supernatural claims dilutes Jesus’ message rather than clarifying it.

[@walkershippy]

@@jefftravilla Well put

[@account2871]

​@@jefftravilla The bible is very clear that Christ fulfills the passover in which the people of God, for their salvation, were commanded to eat a spotless lamb. If you deny that Christ is the passover lamb, that we do not consume Christ, then you believe that Jesus has done NOTHING for us at all, because he wouldn't be fulfilling the passover by just rephrasing it, which is what happens on this weird memorialist view.

[@swim96ful]

@@jefftravilla I appreciate your comment. The Roman Catholic doctrine might often feel like overcomplicating things. There's a slight issue we would have to address with your line of thought, though. If we really don't want to overcomplicate Jesus' words, then why wouldn't we believe when He said "This is my body". Now we would want to take it as symbolic, because it's easier (for us), though depending on what denomination you are, it will take a different extent, sometimes being to the Catholic view (ie Lutheran) or very distant (ie denominational) or something in between. The Catholic claim is simple. "This is my body". This is what early Christians believed. Now, when someone disbelief this, Catholic theologians have to defend it somehow, right? And then this has to get complicated because God is beyond our comprehension. I mean, can we easily explain the concept of Trinity? This is even more complex to "defend" than defending the real presence in the Eucharist. "Do this in remembrance of me". Here the remembrance means more "memorial" from Greek. So, Jesus says "This is my body" and then "Do this as a memorial of me". Do we think that Jesus really just wanted us to do this cuz it would be nice of us to think about Him from time to time, or did He want us to participate in something real and deep? And this is important, because we all love Jesus, and we should desire His real presence, not just through worship songs or thinking about Him, but through His gracious sacrifice that we can belong to and proclaim during the Eucharist.

[@joelmontero9439]

I like Dr. Salkeld and Dr. Nemes they are really smart theologians but I think they need another conversation to talk about this issue, I feel like this was just the surface of a much richer dialogue God bless you all

[@mylescoen150]

Incredible conversation between two gifted thinkers. As someone more familiar with the Catholic view, Dr. Nemes provided fascinating and robust arguments I had never considered before. I am such a fan of this kind of content and dialogue.

[@housechurchguy]

Matt Fradd: "Just so you know, this is NOT a debate. Just a friendly conversation. Let's start..." Video Title: "Catholic and Protestant DEBATE the Eucharist" 😂😂😂

[@junmahusay2721]

Debate can mean a discussion of an issue where opposing positions are presented. It can also mean a polemical discussion of an issue. When Matt said " this is not a debate" he was using the word in the second sense. The video tile however uses the word in the first sense.

[@gailstone1636]

Exactly

[@HappyFern07]

Love listening to Dr Nemes!

[@michalmarek7691]

Absolutely best debate thus far on Eucharist, and Ive heard many Thanks Matt for your kindness and openness to host protestants, and good job dr Steven! :)

[@NotBlandBlandina]

I love coming back to this dialogue

[@noahfletcher3019]

This is the best discussion i've ever heard on the eucharist. Not sure what position to take but its so interesting. Cheers guys.

[@craig2535]

I enjoyed the back & forth discussion. I liked how each speaker was given an opportunity to comment on the other’s statements and answer/clarify their arguments. I watched an interview with Dr Nemes on the “Capturing Christianity” channel and thought he just saw things as he wanted through his own lens but having the debate format gave him more opportunity to explain and defend his side and I understand it better now. I don’t share his belief but I can now see how he arrived at that understanding.

[@jon6car]

The example of thinking about a childhood friend followed by his friend literally being there hurts his case.

[@imjustheretogrill4794]

Really need to get Nemes to sit down with William Albrecht.

[@jmjaquinas7298]

Dr Nemish is quite articulate, and I appreciate his thoughtful expression of his beliefs. I certainly never held to such sophisticated beliefs as a Protestant. However, as so many Protestants do, he has not submitted his ideas to Christ in humility, but is, rather, innovating. A Catholic theologian would never be permitted such license. At around 35:46 he says “I understand my role as a theologian as trying to suggest a new direction.” There are certainly some Protestant traditions where such a statement would be anathema, but it is the rebellion of Protestantism itself that makes such a statement possible

[@jmjaquinas7298]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes I see I misspelled your last name. My apologies. Christ is the supreme teacher, the Prophet, Priest, King, and Rabbi. But many participate in those ministries in lesser ways. Otherwise, how would St James have said “not many of you should become teachers.” All are students of Christ, yes, but not all are *merely* students. However, even if we were all merely students it would certainly be suggestive of error were one student to differ from all the others provided they all had the same infallible teacher

[@MNskins11]

A pastor shepherding his flock could try a new direction, but the deposit of faith must be guarded and protected from a “new” direction.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

"“I understand my role as a theologian as trying to suggest a new direction.” " This is interesting as one doesn't find it in the early Church. Rather, those who did so were very much criticized if they departed from the faith passed down. If one departs from the boundaries of that faith, error occurs. And since he is fallible, he really can only ever say, "my opinion is" ... and he must be open to his being in error. Interesting too, is that he accepts without thinking that the New Testament consists of exactly 27 writings, no more, no less, decided by late 4th c Catholic Bishops. He doesn't suggest a new direction on this canon, tacitly deferring to the authority of the Catholic Church to have decided long, long ago, but he believes that the very same Church error'd and error'd repeatedly on doctrine, that he knows better 1600 years later than they. This is a mark of pride and his not understanding his role as a theologian.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes " with two thousand years of theological discussion behind us" Right. There is much room for theological discussion yet one can not drive off the apostle highway in what they taught and passed on, the faith guarded by the Church. Scripture warns of new and novel teaching, saying some will come doing so. "“accept without thinking” the New Testament canon?" Ok, if you don't, please explain what writings should be rejected and which of the 300+ early Christian writings have been left out that should be included. "so arrogant and hyperconfident about your point of view?" If you accept WITH Thinking then I do apologize. :). At the same time, ad hominem attacks are a sign of weakness of argument. The NT canon itself leads to Rome. Unless you believe that the Holy Spirit is inconsistent, leading men to know what is and is not NT scripture, but the same men ALL error'ing on how to "interpret" its pages. One only needs to start with the Eucharist : - How could the 4th c Church get the NT RIGHT ... and ALL - universally wherever your went - error on their belief that the bread and wine transformed into the Resurrected Body and Blood of Christ, just as Jesus says: THIS IS MY BODY ? - Do you believe trust that Pagan's got the canon right, worshiping a piece of bread? Thinking such makes Jesus Christ out to be undependable and a liar. He FAILED .... to lead his Church to ALL Truth as he promised (Jn 16:13). Just some truth, some times. Great error, other times. _10 that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places_ (Eph 3)

[@TruthHasSpoken]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes On the Eucharist Steven, one can read what the early Church wrote, how scripture should be understood. There was no division. The prayers St Justin Martyr speaks of are the prayers of the priest at Mass. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have *WE BEEN TAUGHT that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”* Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (A.D. 110-165). St Cyril of Jerusalem *“Having LEARN these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ;* and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.”” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350). St Athanasius ... as Bishops, he recited those prayers at Mass - and he was the very first Christian to list the NT writings - all 27 exactly - as we have them today. “You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ…. *When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.”* Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26, 1325 (ante A.D. 373). Note too where St Ambrose lived (Italy, while Cyril was in the Holy Land, St Athanasius in Egypt = consistency in the Faith on the Eucharist) “Then He added: ‘For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink [indeed].’ Thou hearest Him speak of His Flesh and of His Blood, thou perceivest the sacred pledges, [conveying to us the merits and power] of the Lord’s death, and thou dishonourest His Godhead. Hear His own words: ‘A spirit hath not flesh and bones.’ *Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, “do show the Lord’s Death.'”* Ambrose, On the Christian Faith, 4, 10:125 (A.D. 380).

[@ColleenB10]

I usually listen to all of these podcasts in full. However this one I had to turn off. It was painful to try to wrap my brain around the logic and mental gymnastics some do to justify Christ NOT being present in the Eucharist. It truly is simple. Jesus says he IS the bread of life. The bread that he will give is his flesh. And we must eat of the flesh or we have no life within us. Jesus IS life, the bread IS his flesh, and the WORD became FLESH. It is quite simple. Humans over complicate something so simple. A lovely gentleman who took a very great deal of time and devotes his life to this. 🙏🏼. Bless all of you.

[@witherslayer711]

Amen. Well said!

[@imjustheretogrill4794]

Can we get a discussion with Albrecht and Nemes?

[@noahfletcher3019]

@YAJUN YUAN LOL, agreed.

[@EdwardGraveline]

Ignatius of Antioch taught by John the Apostle was huge on the Eucharist

[@EdwardGraveline]

@eucharistangel4662 "Eighty-six years I have been his servant. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?" These words were spoken by Polycarp. Polycarp was the bishop at the church at Smyrna. Last week we looked at Ignatius. Ignatius was bishop at Antioch. Both Antioch and Smyrna were significant cities in the New Testament. And there's another connection. Both Ignatius and Polycarp were the disciples of John. In fact there is this great legend in church history that as Ignatius was John's disciple, and Polycarp was John's disciple, then Polycarp was also Ignatius' disciple. Polycarp would go on to disciple Irenaeus. And Irenaeus would go on-now here's a great name from the early church-he would go on to disciple Hippolytus. So there we have this great length through the first two centuries of the church's life back to John.

[@theheavymetalmissionary2364]

It seems a good thing for Brett that he had back up during this. Seemed a couple of times the "moderator" helped deflect or flat out lead Brett out of a corner. Steven held his own in this 2 on 1 drill.

[@adifferentangle7064]

Held his own? He was being allowed to speak his bullshit in a respectful environment. I would not be so kind. This is not an area that there is room to interpret what is happening. It is the ONE time Jesus tells us he is being dead serious, when he tells us it is physically flesh and blood. I would not even allow all of the wallowing that happened to occur. Jesus Christ said in his own words, and if you don't believe his word is true, then how can you call yourself Christian? You may as well worship a turtle.

[@francisfogarty3942]

I listened to this as a podcast, and every time Dr Brett said something, it sounded as if a Catholic Jordan Peterson had come into the room... I'm I the only one who notes the voice similarity?

[@abbyschubert5637]

I’m so glad you pointed this out; I literally commented about this on Gospel Simplicity’s channel on Austin’s interview with Dr. Brett 🤣 I’m very entertained by the Canadian accent

[@EdwardGraveline]

For my body is TRUE FOOD and my blood is TRUE DRINK

[@RobRod305]

I think there should be another conversation of this and I would like to see more of 1 Corinthians 11 talked about

[@RobRod305]

@YAJUN YUAN You clearly haven’t read the chapter right before. Chapter 10 says it is a communion in the body and blood of the Lord. You are dishonest, I have seen you around KZbin comment sections and all you do is pontificate and you still haven’t given the Catholic/Orthodox side a chance intellectually speaking. Now go bear false witness somewhere else

[@RobRod305]

@YAJUN YUAN “fellowship” is an absolutely poor translation. What did you use for that?

[@hellopaulie]

"Fellowship" is indeed from a corrupted translation; known as the LSV, and the Young's version. One cannot translate literally word for word. Context and meaning is easily lost.

[@pdxnikki1]

By your faith, He has made you well. Even the Centurion understands this. FAITH is needed. If you don't believe Him, how can you receive Christ?

[@matthewcauthorn9731]

The Truth of the matter is Jesus let those who refused to believe walk away,lets not be so charitable we end up looking foolish.

[@LuisLopez-dw7ug]

Great stuff. Would like to hear more of Dr. Nemes position on metaphysics. At times I felt like his metaphysics was similar to Jung- there is no metaphysics, all psyche. (Or in his case, all experience?) I could be totally wrong, and just (haha just language) misunderstood some of his rebuttals to classical metaphysics. Also I acknowledge he didn’t really have time to parse out his own metaphysical view.

[@ralfbettker-cuza7432]

This was a very, very respectful debate on both sides - and Matt, you did a very good job as well! As far as I can see it, it basically boils down to Church authority and the development of doctrine. Even if the belief in the Real Presence was not right there in the beginning - or let's say it was ambiguously expressed - the Church in its totality came to the conclusion that the Real Presence is true. Just as the Church decided to switch from the Sabbath (saturday) to the first day of the week (sunday) and thus acting explicitly against the Torah. Now, does the Church have the right to do so? Apparently yes, only the Seventh-Day-Adventists disagree and still keep the Sabbath. Or let's take another example: Arius knew and used Scripture and didn't misuse it - the Church ruled against him. The same happened with the Donatists and many others (the heretic groups in Church history were many and still are, I'm afraid). Both knew Scripture well and venerated it - Scripture alone doesn't work, it seems. So, it's not about who has better arguments on the scriptural or metaphysical view - each party tends to believe its own arguments are way better and more convincing anyhow - it is about authority in decision making. Without an ecclesial body of authority we'd still argue about the divinity of Christ, the Trinity would be uncertain, we wouldn't know if Mary really gave birth to the Christ or just the man named Jesus, even Marcion's position on the canon would still be considered a valid option and many issues more ... (I do not necessarily mean the papacy, though I firmly believe Catholic, but it has to be something, either a union of decision makers or just one person or both!)

[@ewaugh7406]

Thanks!

[@henrybarr7307]

Evelyn??

[@PaxMundi118]

If you are a Protestant that believes in the Real Presence, but worships in a tradition that does not -- what is your thinking on this? Thank you!

[@noahfletcher3019]

I think it's a very plausible position with good biblical and historical support, especially with the didace.

[@Loganva]

There are other positions that Rome takes that I just can’t get behind as of now. Also, when I look at the history of the Reformation I find that it is extremely justified. I am attracted to Rome, but I’m not there intellectually.

[@TempleofChristMinistries]

When the Christ said eat my flesh and drink my blood he's speaking spiritually, as the blood gives life to the body the spirit gives life to the word, the flesh is the word and the blood is the spirit, eat his words drink his spirit and you will have life in you, for those to have his life they have he's spirit and they have his word, concerning the breaking of bread in The Last Supper is clearly stated do this in remembrance of me, we do this remembering him on the cross so there are two different values concerning the flesh and the blood, in the breaking of bread it is the remembrance of the Cross ,and the eating of his flesh and blood is the word and the spirit. As the Christ said my words are spirit The flesh counts for nothing the spirit is life.

[@rovildcrasta4436]

Dr. Nemes mentions that there is zero mention of real presence in Didache. But the fact is, it states that the breaking bread in communion is nothing but the offering of pure sacrifice which it goes on to identify it as the fulfillment of an old testament prophecy of people offering pure sacrifice to God. Didache identifies breaking of bread tradition as that pure sacrifice offered. No symbol can be treated as a sacrifice. Sorry. Breaking of bread is a sacrifice which is also explicitly stated by Apostle Paul. Paul also goes on to say that Christian have the "ALTAR" on which the sacrifice is made. "ALTAR" is the place where SACRIFICE IS MADE. Breaking of Bread is a SACRIFICE Dr. Nemes. Not a Symbol ! Didache Ch:14 "On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: 'In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.'"

[@rovildcrasta4436]

@YAJUN YUAN I don't understand what you are trying to convey. The highlighted sentence, "In every place and time" refers to the pure sacrifice that will be offered by new covenant community. It is exactly the Eucharist that is offered in Catholic church in every place and time perfectly fulfilling the prophecy of Malachy. There is no other pure sacrifice in new covenant community other than Sacrifice of Christ. This pure sacrifice is offered by new covenant people in every place and time as Eucharist (the sacrifice of Christ made present in time in every place). That is the reason why Jesus appears as a lamb slain in heaven in the book of revelation. Even now he is being offered as sacrifice in heaven in front of God's throne, which is being made present to the people of new covenant and are made to partake of the sacrifice just as the offerer of Passover lamb had to mandatorily partake of the sacrifice by eating the flesh of the lamb even if he doesn't like meat of the lamb. Else his family would be doomed. The Thanksgiving offering (A form of Peace offering called as Todah sacrifice in Hebrew)in old testament mandatorily requires eating of the flesh of the sacrifice along with bread and wine. If bread and wine of the Eucharist is a symbol then Jesus need not have died literally on the cross. He could have died symbolically. Jesus died literally in order to provide for the literal flesh of the sacrifice through the liturgy which dates to the era of Moses when Moses says the liturgical words of consecration "This is the blood of the covenant" over the blood of the bulls as he sprinkles it upon the people to ratify the covenant with Israelites. What if Moses did not say those words of consecration over the blood of the bulls?? It would simply remain as the blood of bulls and would not become the blood of the covenant. Similarly Jesus says the words of consecration over the wine saying "This is my blood. Blood of the new covenant" . It has turned the wine sacramentally into the blood of Christ, which he literally joins the next day from the blood pouring from his passion and cross by intentionally skipping the Fourth cup of Passover Seder wine (called as cup of consummation) of Jewish liturgical celebration. He delaying the drinking of the Fourth cup of wine and consumes it on the cross where the soldier offers him wine on the cross. He drinks this wine and says "It is Finished" . What is finished?? It is the Passover liturgy that he began at the upper room with bread and wine, he FINISHED it by literally pouring the blood and offering his literal body on cross. This is the entire Passover liturgy of Christ. This is the way Christ literally joined his literal body and blood of his passion to the bread and wine he offered on the Table (Sacrifice is always made on the Table. The Table is the Altar) at the upper room. Listen or read Dr. Scott Hahn to know more.

[@jon6car]

@YAJUN YUAN You know the letter to the Hebrews was a letter to the Hebrews and not a letter to the Catholics. When he speaks about priest and sacrifice he means to talk about the tamid sacrifice which the levitical priesthood would make. At the 3rd and 9th hour or 9am and 3pm. You're confusing the prefigure with the fulfilment. The point he (the author of Hebrews) is trying to make is that no longer is animal sacrifice necessary. For Christ completed it with a perfect sacrifice. We know that it is perfect and done only once for after it was completed he sat down.

[@jon6car]

@YAJUN YUAN Also how can you believe that he is talking to Catholics when you guys believe (in error) Constantine started the Catholic Church? Did he have access to time traveling Catholics?

[@jon6car]

@YAJUN YUAN Every time at the words of concecration the priest says the words do this in remembrance of me like Christ said at the last supper. Saying its a memorial or something similar doesn't really do anything for your argument. How much do you know about 2nd temple Judaism? Or 1st century Judaism?

[@jon6car]

@YAJUN YUAN Do you know how the Passover sedar goes?

[@TurretinFan]

I wonder whether Dr. Brett Salkeld would be open to a more formal debate on transubstantiation or another topic that currently prevents full communion with Protestants.

[@JohnPallas]

Excellent discussion

[@FrostyIceman]

If it is just a symbol why would it make you feel any more special than receiving a picture of Jesus?

[@bobthebuildest6828]

its so weird to me that the protestant has the icon behind him 🤣

[@candyclews4047]

The analogy of the engagement ring seems nice but that's not what John 6 says about the Eucharist. The Jews were appalled and the Disciples said to Jesus that this was a hard teaching - hardly the same reaction to being offered an engagement ring and accepting.

[@michaelheffernan4509]

Debate? There is no debate.? The Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

[@michaelheffernan4509]

And so there's no question about what I just said I'm talking about the Holy Eucharist in the Catholic Church because there is no other Holy Eucharist other than in the Catholic Church.

[@danp.torreja2777]

The Bible says, The Kingdom of God is within you. Partaking the Lord's Supper on earth will be the precursor of Marriage Supper of the Lamb in Heaven-Revelation 19:6-9 Blessed are those invited.

[@believer8793]

It’s not a common thing in the protestant circle that they perform communion weekly, most circles it’s performed once a month.

[@ReidRob97]

No offense to Dr. Nemes, but he's certainly not representative of any Protestant but himself (and he basically admitted that several times). I'd love if you could get somebody committed to a confessional perspective to talk about this at some point.

[@bigbrownhouse6999]

Ned Flanders’ voice vs Ned Flanders appearance

[@cachinnation448]

This was fantastic.

[@HM-vj5ll]

Food for thought 🤔 "Who is the Bread of the kingdom of God, but He who says, I am the Living Bread which came down from heaven? Do not get your mouth ready, but your heart. On this occasion it was that the parable of this supper was set forth. Lo, we believe in Christ, we receive Him with faith. In receiving Him we know what to think of. We receive but little, and we are nourished in heart. It is not then what is seen, but what is believed, that feeds us."

[@deaconken3752]

The question they are grappling with is how does one eat God? One can't really except that God would allow and come in a form we could consume, bread and wine. It seems similar to the question, how could Mary be Theotokos, bearer of God? She couldn't except that God would allow and take physical presence for a specific purpose

[@StayFaithful13]

Sheesh I always knew Nemes was a little weird when I was a Protestant but his view on the Eucharist is just nutty. I don't say that as an insult but I didn't know any Protestant in my Reformed tradition that held to that view.

[@StayFaithful13]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes not many Refrmation theologians had anything nice to say about Zwingli's view. Especially Luther.

[@viktoriyatarevic900]

I don't know where Nemes gets the idea that St. Justin didn't affirm transubstantiation: “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh *by transmutation* are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” - St. Justin, First Apology [Schaff] pp. 185, C. LXVI

[@viktoriyatarevic900]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes I honestly really struggle with what it is you're trying to argue. It sounds like you don't have a good grasp of Aristotle's categories but I don't want to put words in your mouth and run with an uncharitable interpretation. I simply don't know where you get this idea that Christ is not "locally present" in the Eucharist. Substance is quiddity. When substance changes, then the "whatness" of the object, in reality, changes. Moses transubstantiated water into blood and, similarly, Jesus transubstantiated water into wine. The only difference here is that, out of an act of grace, the object retains the properties/accidents/qualities of what it *was* previously. So the body/blood retains the sweetness and softness of the bread/wine. In other words, Christ is most certainly present locally in the Eucharist. I'm actually not Catholic, but a quick review of Catholic dogma seems to directly contradict what it is you're arguing. For example, it's de fide that after the Consecration has been completed, that both the body and blood are present in the Eucharist in an enduring manner - meaning after the ritual is complete the species are still the body and blood of the Lord. Their existence in reality, after the transformation, is no longer contingent upon ritual (see, Ott, "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma," pp. 410-411). Ott further explains, "... the multiplication is of the body's relation to space, that is, its presence... He [His body and blood in the Eucharist] is at the same time present in different modes, in several places,." (ibid., pp. 414) I will acknowledge, however, that it is odd that Ott makes no reference to the physical impact of partaking in the Eucharist. The benefits/effects of the Eucharist, at least according to Ott, are all spiritual and within the soul. However, the Orthodox too affirm transubstantiation, and they are unambiguous that the effects/benefits are both spiritual and physical: "... of thy Mystic Supper, O Son of God, accept me today as a communicant: for I will not speak of thy Mysteries to thine enemies, neither will I give thee a kiss as did Judas; but like the thief will I confess thee: Remember me, O Lord, in thy Kingdom. Not unto judgement no condemnation be my partaking of the Holy Mysteries, O Lord, but into the healing of soul *and body* [Emphasis]." - A prayer of Chrysostom said prior to communion at every liturgy Either way, I don't understand how it follows that the bread/wine must necessarily only symbolize the body/blood if one affirms that the benefits/effects are only spiritual/in the soul. It appears to me that conclusion is a total non sequitur. Said more precisely, even if we believe that Catholics and St. Justin differ on the effects/benefits of the Eucharist, it doesn't necessarily follow that they disagree on the metaphysics of the sacramental transformation of the species during the ritual (which is the subject matter at hand/in dispute).

[@viktoriyatarevic900]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes Thank you for clarifying Aquinas' position. Upon further review, I can't make sense of it either. That said, Aquinas and his Summa are not dogmatic in the Catholic faith and therefore I'm not convinced that it reflects the authentic Catholic teaching. I could be wrong, but Dr. Salkeld's unwillingness to engage you on the matter doesn't prove your position. Either way, even if it is the case [that Catholics reject Christ is locally present in the Eucharist], then your argument would only address a single interpretation/understanding of transubstantiation. The Eastern view, as I noted, neither denies that (i) Christ is locally present in the sacrament nor (2) that the sacrament is efficacious in the healing of soul *and* body (and is therefore consistent with the passage provided by St. Justin). As a result, your argument, even if correct, would not prove your position - it would only put into question Thomas's articulation of the doctrine. Going back to the passage on St. Justin and the question of the bodily/physical effects/impact of the Eucharist: Again, even if I grant you that Catholics reject a bodily/physical impact from partaking the Eucharist, I still don't see how your conclusion [namely that the Eucharist must be exclusively symbolic because its effects are only spiritual] follows. It's totally conceivable that a composite physical-spiritual cause results in spiritual-only effects.

[@ralfbettker-cuza7432]

@YAJUN YUAN Well, St. Justin didn't say "physical" blood and flesh - and you know why? Because this concept didn't exist. As you may know, the blood back in these days was thought to be the carrier of life itself, of the spirit of the person. Furthermore, the modern distinction of spiritual versus physical was also not known, at least not as a strict dualism. Catholic doctrine affirms this ancient position by clarifying that we receive the whole Christ even if we receive only the body in the appearance of the bread. The physical reality always transmits a spiritual reality as well - in the Catholic sacramental worldview (and it is a worldview!), it always is a "both ... and" - you cannot have one without the other. So even if it's only the "body of Christ", it's his "blood" as well. Once you understand this worldview you found the entrance ticket to understanding all sacraments and the importance of the connection of the physical and the spiritual (more than just a connection, it's a union of both). Just think about marriage - we as Catholics believe that the conjugal act transmits a sacramental(!) spiritual reality as well!

[@YeriYeri-l4w]

Jesus is King! I will never abandon my Catholic faith ❤

[@vtaylor21]

1:13:50 Dr. Names mentioned the apostles used a metaphorical meaning of eating. I seriously doubt that when the apostle John switched from the Greek word phago to trogo in chapter 6 to really show that Jesus truly means to eat His body and drink His blood.

[@Mila-kz8tt]

@YAJUN YUAN why ?

[@vtaylor21]

@YAJUN YUAN The switch is not towards a metaphorical meaning because the Greek word “trogo” is not defined as figurative eating. It means to literally gnaw or chew. The figurative word for eating is the Greek word “phago”. Jesus used the word “phago” in Jn 6:49. The Jees asked how can Jesus give His flesh to eat. Jesus then switched to the word “trogo” emphasizing to gnaw or chew His body. “Phago” was the only word used to describe a metaphorical eating. “Trogo” is used only 6 times. 4 of the 6 times “trogo” is used in Jn 6: 54-58.

[@jon6car]

@@Mila-kz8tt Red Herring argument

[@vtaylor21]

@YAJUN YUAN You forgot the other definition of “phago” and “esthio”. The Greek lexicon also defines those words as METAPHORICAL to devour, consume. You looked up those words and you looked past the other part of the definition where those 2 words are also defined as METAPHORICAL EATING. If you claim you know what the Greek lexicon says, don't ignore the parts where “phago” and “esthio” are also defined as metaphorical eating. If the Greek lexicon defines a word a certain way, that means the Bible used those words in a certain way. In other words, if “phago” and “esthio” are also defined as figurative eating, that means those words were used when eating was meant figuratively. For example, Jn 4:32 mentioned Jesus telling His apostles He has food to eat that they don't know. “Eat” in that verse was figurative, and the free word “phago” was used. Revelation 2:7 and 10:10 and other verses that used eating figuratively only used “phago”. Trogo was never used. If “trogo” truly means figurative eating in John 6, why wasn't “trogo” used in Jn 4:32, Rev 2:7, Rev 10:10, and other verses that clearly mean figurative eating? Why was phago only used for figurative eating in the Bible and not trogo?

[@vtaylor21]

@YAJUN YUAN If “phago” is used to help with the symbolic interpretation, that means Jn 6: 54-48 most definitely should not be interpreted as metaphorical or symbolic. “Phago” was not used in those verses, and “trogo” was never used for a figurative interpretation. You asked why no verse explicitly says eat this body or drink this blood. John 6:55 is explicit when Jesus said His body is TRUE food and His blood is TRUE drink. If you don't consider that explicit, you need to stop believing in the Trinity. The Bible doesn't explicitly state the Trinity is three person sharing one divine nature. As far as the figurative message, I meant the difference between Jn 6:35-44 and 6:48-58. Jesus first introduced Himself as the Bread of Life in verse 35, and the Pharisees took that as a metaphorical title. Jesus introduced Himself as the Bread of Life again. That time, the Pharisees took Him literally. Jesus affirmed that he truly means He is the Bread and His literal Body must be consumed. If the Pharisees understood the Bread of Life title as a metaphor the first time, there was no reason for Jesus to reintroduce Himself as the Bread of Life again unless He meant it in another way.

[@junmahusay2721]

Why does Dr. Nemes think that the bread and wine are meant to be symbols only of Christ's body and blood?

[@gandolfthorstefn1780]

52:00 Luke 24:30-31. Where's the controversy? This is my body(from another verse),...he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. And there eyes were opened and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight.

[@OldRomanTV]

If you believe in the resurrection why wouldn’t you believe in the Eucharist…?(!)

[@CatholicChristian51]

If you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have eternal life

[@bigtittie7295]

🙌 John 6:53 "Except ye eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no eternal life in you."

[@domanicvaldez]

Get Nemes and Pitre!

[@BillyTeaStoop]

I appreciate this channel and these debates. My biggest hangups on the Roman Catholic Church are the Marian Dogmas. I hope you will think about hosting a similar debate should the opportunity come up.

[@ElizJaq]

@@Kitiwake thanks fo that. There are all sorts of catholics from around the world.

[@merecatholicity]

I am a Protestant that has recently come to accept the Marian dogmas. I'd suggest Brant Pitre's book on Mary. It changed my life.

[@BillyTeaStoop]

@@merecatholicity Thank you for the suggestion. I'm going to order it.

[@merecatholicity]

@@BillyTeaStoop Blessings, my friend.

[@rootberg]

Another excellent book on the topic is "Behold your mother" by Tim Staples.

[@robertopacheco2997]

Thank you for your attention and courtesy, Dr. Nemes. I appreciate your caveats. However, if you suggest that none of the earliest documents express a Real Presence theology, then the inevitable conclusion is that the later fathers and doctors of the church in fact innovated doctrine, something anathema to the first Christ followers. Moreover, Dr. Nemes, you clearly exposited on your reading of the early documents. I have a Ph.D. in History so I know a bit about how to read historical documents. But, quite frankly, my reading or your reading of these sources isn't the point. I just don't see in the primary sources of early church history your own modernist hermeneutcal readings and approach. One of my methodological qualms as a historian is starting with a paradigm foreign to the historical context of my sources. I appreciate your candor and explicit avowal of a given philosophical approach to your readings. As a historian, however, I'm not bound to any theory, whether modern or post-modern. That's the difference between our respective fields of expertise. Blessed Advent to you and yours!

[@rootberg]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes I think the emphasis you have in your reading is idiosyncratic and very contrived. The main content of any real presence view is hardly constructed to answer the question whether something can "nourish" the body and blood or not. Rather the main content is that Christ is really present in the bread and wine. But besides that it is a red herring, why would it be in conflict with what Aquinas teaches? Does he not in fact teach the opposite of what you claim. See his ”I answer that” in the Summa, Q77 A6: ”And [the sacramental species] can be converted into the human body for the same reason as they can into ashes or worms. Consequently, it is evident that they nourish.” You might find his arguments as to why they can nourish (given in A1-A5) unconvincing, but that is besides the point. He seem to teach that they do in fact nourish, for what it’s worth. Even if Thomas would have taught the opposite it would still be an open questions whether any claims from the fathers about nourishing ”body and blood” should best be understood in terms of the biological function of food to sustain a living being. I would find that interpretation a bit out of place given the theological context of the texts. I find it more probable that it is a poetic way of describing how the Eucharist supports the healthy development of the whole human person, i.e. ultimately his or her sanctification (like St. Ignatius ”medicine”). This could be true even if you had a real presence view that denied that the consecrated bread could nourish biologically speaking (which Thomas as far as I can see doesn’t).

[@delbertclement2115]

How do we determine whether there needs to be a course correction in the development of theology?

[@trupela]

‘…I’m happy to let God work with either of those outcomes…’ 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@junmahusay2721]

In what sense is the body of Christ being eaten? Eating means putting food into the mouth, chewing it so as to become easy to swallow and swallowing it. To eat the body of Christ, is to put it in the mouth, to chew it if needed and to swallow it. And what does eating the body of Christ mean? It means that we are participating in the passover which Christ accomplished on the cross. Is it not possible to effect this participation with just bread symbolizing the body of Christ? Of course it is. But does that mean therefore that the bread is not really the body of Christ but a mere symbol? No. The last supper of Christ where the Eucharist was instituted was done in the context of the feast of Passover. It was clearly Christ's passover meal. And if we think about the passover we can't avoid thinking about the first passover and its accompanying first passover meal. In the first passover meal, the Jews had to eat the flesh of the sacrificial lamb and daub its blood on the lintel of the doorway. One may ask, why would God want the Jews to do that? Couldn't he just save them from death without making go through the trouble of having to slaughter a lamb, of cooking it and eventually eating it? Of course he could. Likewise, one may ask why would God want Christians to go through a ritual where bread is supposedly transformed into Christ's body before eating it. Why not just require them to think that the bread is Christ's body without it becoming actually so? Of course that's possible but we know that that's unlikely. We know by the way we understand the connection between the Old Testament and New Testament that what the Old Testament tells us about are realities that signify Christ. They are like signs that point to a higher reality which is Christ and his actions. This way, we see that the flesh of the lamb eaten during the passover couldn't have been a sign pointing to another sign or symbol, but to Christ himself, in his body and soul and his Divinity.

[@trupela]

Agreed, God is not in competition with creation (a common Protestant view). But God is also not ontologically separated from creation (a common RC view). It seems to me that these are two sides of the same worldview coin. Jesus shows creation what the Father is always already like. Is the Eucharist the real presence of Christ? Absolutely, but so is everything else, if one has eyes to see.

[@gandolfthorstefn1780]

No need to split hairs, Luke 22:19. ...This is my body which is given for you:....

[@danp.torreja2777]

John 6:58 This is the BREAD THAT CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever FEEDS ON THIS BREAD WILL LIVE FOREVER.

[@makalikasan3339]

If a person is really interested in salvation, he must have an open mind and go with the teaching of the HS freely. This Eucharist have some miracles and laboratory test to prove authenticity in science point of view. Biblically " If you dont eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man there is no life in you." It is up to the people to pray and discern what is the truth.

[@rovildcrasta4436]

Dr. Scott Hahn is the best to demonstrate the literal eating and drinking of body and blood of Christ in Eucharist through transubstantiation. Dr. Scott Hahn does it purely from the Old Testament and it's fulfillment in the New Testament. And he does it so amazingly destroying any single Protestant counters. Totally out of scripture he demonstrates the Truth.

[@rovildcrasta4436]

@YAJUN YUAN your question is out of sync. Sacrifice of Christ is the fulfillment of the old testament sacrifice of Passover lamb. Scripture says the old testament Passover lambs are the foreshadow of the things Christ would literally fulfill in Himself to establish the New Covenant era. Definitely as Paul says Old Testament Passover lambs had the flesh of the lamb and not the flesh of Christ. You need to ask proper questions

[@jimmylamb]

I believe what the Catholics teach. I going through RCIA. Can you give me the name of a Scott Hahn book or vide on this.

[@rovildcrasta4436]

@@jimmylambDr Scott Hahn's book The Lamb's Supper is good. Also you can read Dr. Brant Pitre's book The Jewish roots of the Eucharist.

[@jimmylamb]

@@rovildcrasta4436 Thank you.

[@geraldnovak7550]

When the disciples complained that this teaching was " too hard", Jesus clarified; John 6:63 " It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit and they are life. " I see this response similar to His answer to Nichodemas who asked how one can be born again. John 3: 5-6 Jesus answered ( likewise ) " one must be born of water and spirit" Flesh is flesh and spirit is spirit. He says you must be born of the Spirit. No idea of climbing back into the mother in the flesh is suggested. These two ideas seem to parallel.

[@gandolfthorstefn1780]

Luke 24:36-39 He is resurrected in a new body.He says ''for a spirit does not have flesh and bones". He appears in New flesh on earth and vanishes in spirit. He is the son of God. Why not. Do you think heaven is filled with disembodied spirits? When he said flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven he was talking about flesh that has not resurrected. My ways are higher than yours means it's hard for people to go beyond apparent contradictions because they are educated in a world of physics and the superstition of materialism.

[@TheDjcarter1966]

I think it would be interesting to see what Dr Nemes thinks about Eastern tradition since the Eastern Church isn't as concrete as the Western tradition.

[@j.athanasius9832]

He still has problems with the Eastern Tradition in the same way he has problems with the Western Tradition. Namely, they are very heavy handed with anathema usage, and he sees this as a very wrong thing.

[@tabandken8562]

Too many people translate the word "spirit" with "symbolic" as if the 2 words are synonymous. I've had John 6:63 thrown at me MANY times. It's Protestants go to verse in John 6. They don't know what to think when I remind them "spirit" and "symbol" don't mean the same thing. Protestants are too fleshy, that's why they don't understand spiritual teachings.

[@Lloyd.B.]

34:12 Exodus 12 doesn't say anything about the people believing that celebrating the Passover "made present God's saving actions from the past"... Unless by "made present" you mean made present in their memory or in their minds.

[@MyMy-tv7fd]

Hi Matt, would you like to have a go at a theological question I have, quite beyond my own learning. I am very perplexed by the scripture 'Do you not know that we will judge angels?' 1 Cor. 6v3. How is this to be since the medieval teaching of man's position on earth in the Economy of Grace and the Great Chain of Being which place us higher than the sub-moral animals and lower than the sinless angels, prima facie seem to preclude this? Anything you can contribute much appreciated.

[@JeffTrytko]

Great debate! It appears Dr. Nemes's explanation of real presence requires the individual to conceptualize the truth of God's presence for communion to be actualized. As a Catholic, I see persons with cognitive disabilities receive the Eucharist and the real presence is God's doing, not dependant on the individual other than to be present with faith to receive this tremendous grace.

[@SuperFuely]

Hello, to be "born again" is to be filled with the Holy Spirit. True born-again Christians have had a personally-profound non-intellectual experience with God and the Holy Spirit becomes 100% real to the believer, because the spirit testifies to the heart and mind that Jesus is lord. As a born-again Christian filled with the Holy Spirit, I know there is nothing more to be gained from the eucharist and that it is symbolic. I would guess there are between 40 and 100 million born-again Christians world wide. God Bless, Sig

[@bibleman8010]

Are you born again-the way the Bible understands that concept?" If the Evangelical has not been properly water baptized, he has not been born again "the Bible way," regardless of what he may think.The Born Again Movement traces its origin early in the 19th century.Born Again Movement arrived at our shores in the late 1930’s and gained its popularity in the 70’s and 80’s which is considered the golden era of Born Again Movement During these years membership in various Born Again Churches increased because they where able to infiltrate mainline Protestant Churches and had lured nominal Catholics into their fold.However their steady growth ceases starting the year 1990 and their membership declined in the succeeding years. In the year 2000 Born Again Churches from the United States sent their missionaries in the Philippines to re-established the Born Again Movement and this time their primary mission is no longer to infiltrate Protestant and Catholic Churches but targeted the youth in schools particularly college students.Born Again evangelist does not want to discuss the history of the Christian church, in their Bible studies with their prospects, they intentionally limit the discussion to the Bible alone. They conceal the history of the Christian religion because it will show that their movement did not originate from the apostles. It is necessary for them to negate history because St. Paul warned us not to accept teachings that did not originate from the apostles Gal.1:8 and Born Again Movement evidently cannot trace the history of their church into the time of the apostles.Clearly Born Again evangelization has deception as its chief foundation and they even used selected passages from the Bible to deceive people. They usually start evangelizing by asking ambiguous questions such as “Are you saved?” or “Are you born again?”, if the person answers “no or I don’t know” they will tell you that you must accept Christ as a Lord and Personal Savior in order to be born again otherwise you will be damned to hell. And if the person will answer “yes” they will invite you to their church and worship with them. And if the person is a Catholic that would mean that you have to leave the Catholic Church and do away your Catholic beliefs about Mary, the Saints, confession etc. Let us be vigilant not to fall to the snares of the Born Again movement.🤣🤣

[@SuperFuely]

@@bibleman8010 Hello, you speak about a “born-again movement.” The term “born again” is the testimony of Jesus Christ. The movement you speak of, may have some corrupt individuals using Jesus’ words for their own profit. While many more true born-again Christians were, and are, leading people to salvation. There have been born-again, saved Christians since the day of Pentecost. Acts 2:4 “All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.” I didn’t own a Bible and hadn’t been to church in 20 years, when I became a born-again, saved Christian on October 15, 1985 at 10 o’clock at night on an oil rig in Oklahoma. One of the crew members was a youth pastor who often shared Christ’s message of salvation. That night I prayed the sinners’ prayer, by myself, and at the exact moment I said “amen” I was filled with the Holy Spirit. Being born again is a non-intellectual event; it’s not “something you guess has happened to you,” or that you “hope has taken place.” You know it, because you’re literally filled with the Holy Spirit. The very first essence of the Spirit I felt, the millisecond after I said “amen,” was an overwhelming and complete filling of my mind and heart that Jesus Christ was God and that He’d died for me. I began to cry. I’m filled with the Spirit, but I can’t show it to you, I can only tell you; He does not speak audibly to me or give me revelation (I do have a better sense for the truth). He’s a Spirit of truth that testifies to your very core that Jesus is real. John 16:13 “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.” Each born-again / saved Christian has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit that indwells them. It’s personal, and has nothing to do with a group or movement. You’ll find born-again Christians in Baptist Churches, Assembly of God, Free Will, a lot of bible-believing protestant churches. But we are very few, I would guess 5% or so of the folks in my Baptist church are born again. The Bible speaks again and again about receiving the Holy Spirit, and that’s what it means to be born again. (If a person has to wonder if he’s saved, he’s not; you’ll know when the Spirit of truth comes alive in you.) We’re body, soul and spirit. The body’s obvious; created in our mother’s womb. The soul is us; our mind. The spirit in us is from God, but it’s dead; dead to sin. We are 2/3 complete. When we’re born again, the Spirit of truth gives new birth to the spirit within us. And what do you think the truth is that the Spirit testifies to? It’s that Jesus Christ is real and His holy spirit dwells within you. (Yes, I have been water baptized as Jesus was.) Bible verse after verse talks about receiving the Holy Spirit: Luke 11:13 “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Luke 3:16 “John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.” John 14:15-17 “If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” You used the word “movement” many times. Salvation is personal from one man to another. The catholic religion and its offshoots, are about power and control, and perversion. The vatican is the richest organization on earth and one of the most corrupt. The pope allows gay marriage. The pedophilia scandals seem unending. As a born-again Christian I know the eucharist is empty. The nation of Israel is God’s timepiece for this world. I don’t believe the war in Israel is going away, and may be the precursor to the time of tribulation. The next prophetic event in the Bible is the rapture of the (born-again) church. The rapture will probably be very small, maybe less than 100 million (I don’t know about children under the age of accountability). That said, I’ll take the rapture over the eucharist any day. God bless you, brother, and lead you to the truth. Check out www.bornagainchristian.xyz

[@EricAlHarb]

Surprised that the catholic (I’m Orthodox) didn’t talk about unity with Christ.

[@robertopacheco2997]

So, the later church fathers invented whole cloth the theology of the Real Presence in the late 4th and 5th centuries? Dr. Nemes can't answer the question of why this happened other than a wishy-washy appeal to "metaphysics"! This is the key issue given the reticence of the early church regarding theological innovation and Nemes admits he hasn't looked in to it. Why--when it's the obvious problem with his whole approach to patristic hermeneutics?! I'm going to trust Cyril's reading of the Tradition over Nemes' hyper-modernist, phenemonological methodology.

[@Daniel_Abraham1099]

My notes for personal use. Please feel free to correct any errors or oversimplifications. I'm attempting to take all of this in like everyone else. They talked about the different metaphysical world views transitioning between Platonism and Aristotelianism and issues in reconciling the bodily, spiritual, and symbolic elements of the eucharist. Nemes also talked about his minority epistemology which would require protestants to abandon the Catholic idea of dogmatism, and Infallibility. But that was a different discussion. They were having a good conversation on the Church fathers idea of what real presence means. But around the half way mark when they were about to talk about Annihilation vs Conversion of the Bread and wine, they got bogged down by questions of textual analysis in scripture and the fathers. Asking whether individual text supports them or not. This should be done in a separate video. They should have gone deeper and challenged each other more into the metaphysics of both views to see how coherent they are. I wanted to know how it is possible for us to eat the Soul and Divinity of Christ in detail. One point Brett made was how could the apostolic fathers believe in memorialist view but then the Nicene fathers all believe in real presence without conflict. Nemes argues that the Nicene Christians adopted a Dogmatic/intellectual acceptance of the faith rather than the early church view of an experiential acceptance (through the senses). That explains why Nemes is a Phenomenologist and does not like infallibility. But people weren't understanding the epistemology during the q&a and kept on asking Catholic Answers level questions to Nemes which halted the conversation from progressing. Hopefully they can continue the discussion in another video.

[@stcolreplover]

Our Faith, the Christian Faith is A Faith of Incarnation. God doesn’t metaphorically walk among us but literally came down into the flesh and dwelt among us. As Catholic Jordan Peterson said God is a different category than us. Gods Signs are a symbol of God’s Love for us but it doesn’t mean His miracles are “just a metaphor”.

[@CovocNexus]

Yeah, I can tell what ever road that Dr. Steven Nemes is on, only leads to heresy.

[@CovocNexus]

@eucharistangel4662 Please quote that passage you claim. And please read the context as well.

[@verum-in-omnibus1035]

I’ve watched full length discussions with Nemes before, and he is intellectually dishonest and a bit slippery. He’s decided to take a stand for the Protestant religion simply “because that’s his religion.“ The same ego that many of us who converted had to overcome, and bump up with our families. It’s insidious and destroys the minds ability to see things clearly. The Protestant mentality where they all think they’re their own individual little Pope (see: solo Scriptura), infects their whole entire life, every part of their being gets bastardized. There may be exceptions, I just haven’t seen any in 40 years.

[@bethsnider5796]

As a reformed Protestant, I don’t find this discussion helpful at all. Dr. N is arguing for a position, that as a Christian, I don’t think I can agree with … I’m only at 37:34 and he keeps quoting the panenthiest (sp? Name?) who diverts from Christianity and has nothing to contribute to the issue. He also tried to question the infallibility of scripture which takes away all basis for a traditional argument and common epistemology for both sides. I find myself agreeing with the catholic arguments here. But the real issue for me about the Eucharist would be something along the lines of worshipping it. Perhaps that could be categorized as idol worship. A catholic would absolutely recoil at that categorization, but as Protestants, that is how we tend to see it and where the real divergence takes place.

[@nitalagrito1179]

Christ said at d last supper: This is my body n this is my blood he give the bread to the apostles in memory of me

[@SneakyEmu]

How is the language of eating different than Jesus saying we must be born again?

[@soulosxpiotov7280]

Hope you don't accidentally burn down your library.

[@slick222]

No, the views are very different. One says the bread and wine is God in the flesh. The other one says no way to that. Not the same at all.

[@thankfullyforgiven9611]

I’d like to offer an apology. When I first heard this discussion, I mentioned I was 30 minutes into it, and the gentleman who gave the Protestant viewpoint had not even mentioned scripture with verse text. I was a little shocked by this, because a lot of Evangelicals I know would have been quoting scripture instead of just people’s quotes. I had put a comment on there in regards to it, and the speaker had responded. I felt bad and removed my comment. Regardless of my views or most I’ve listened too would say, this man had studied and prepared to the best of his ability. Quite frankly, I’m not a debater by any means, but the last thing I need to do, is say something to discourage someone else who is trying. Shame on me. I’m sorry about that. At first I was trying to be helpful, but online it may have come across as condescending. Sorry about that.

[@allenlasher2312]

You're thankfully forgiven.

[@thankfullyforgiven9611]

@@allenlasher2312 ❤️

[@nutritionnut3975]

It’s seems to me to elevate spiritual over bodily is to be gnostic. It seems to me important that the bread and wine is the actual blood of Christ because Christs incarnation sanctifies the human flesh.

[@jtparker9890]

It seems like Dr. Nemes is advocating for a type of Pelagianism in the sense that he emphasizes the natural. Is this accurate?

[@MegaNovice1]

One thing is for sure both views on the mass cannot both be right. Someone here is incredibly wrong.

[@trupela]

If we say that God is always already “really“ present as Christ, which is to say that all of creation exists in Christ, then we can avoid talking about mirror symbolism but we can also avoid talking about a God Who is not consistently always already love. In other words, when God looks at Gods image, Christ, whose representation is best scene from within creation as Jesus on the cross, God sees God’s Son, beauty itself. And creation, despite it’s propensity to miss the mark, is always already caught up in Christ and can therefore participate in what Christians have called the beatific vision, the loving gaze of the father at the Son, and the son’s response it’s to give himself fully to the father‘s love.

[@tysonguess]

Still waiting for any witness attestation that anyone in the early church interpreted the church fathers in the same manner as Nemes interprets them. If no such witness attestation exists then that precludes Nemes' interpretations from being Apostolic. "Every matter must be established by the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses" - Deuteronomy 19:15, 2 Corinthians 13:1, Matthew 18:16

[@tysonguess]

@YAJUN YUAN I literally guffawed at this question. The question betrays your knowledge or sincerity (or perhaps both, I wouldn't know) because the doctrine of Original Sin wasn't developed until the 5th century by Augustine. So, all one would be required to do is show it after the development of original sin but I will do better. I'll show it in scripture and then provide historical attestation to the belief in early forms that later developed into Mary's perpetual sinlessness. 1. Luke 1:28 - Full of Grace- Kecharitomene is the present perfect form of 'charitoo' which means 'to be graced'. The present perfect form indicates a past completed action that continues uninterrupted into the future. Therefore, the Angel said if we illuminate the word fully "Hail to the one who was, is and will always continue to be full of God's Grace'. Original sin is a privation of grace - meaning a lack of grace Personal sin is a loss of grace through the operation of ones will. Yet, God himself (through the angel) said Mary is permanently full of God's grace. This means that she can neither have original sin nor personal sin as either would mean that she was not permanently full of grace. *Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p.175)* 2. The Ascension of Isaiah - shows the belief in early form here: "‘ the midwife has not gone up to her, and we heard no cries of pain’” Cries of no pain is an indication that she is not under the sin of Adam. This is an early 1st century historical document that attests to that belief early on. 3. The Odes of Solomon - shows the same belief in early form here; " And she labored and bore the Son, but without pain" Sme point with the Odes of Solomon. It shows the historicity of the belief. 4. St. Justin Martyr & St. Irenaeus both through typology contrasting the virgin Eve's disobedience to the Virgin Mary's Obedience and teach that she is the Ark (a point that fully carries the burden of the challenge, explained down further) Irenaeus says it plainly; "And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so it is rescued by a virgin. Virginal disobedience has been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience." The logical deduction is that if the prefigured type (eve) was a virgin yet disobedient, then Mary, being the fulfillment was a virgin and obedient. And since it is disobedience (sin) that led to death, then the fulfillment of the prefigured type is Obedient rather than disobedient (because if the latter then she wouldn't be the fulfillment of the type). 5. From there we start seeing all of the pieces come together even before Original Sin is developed: Hippolytus "His advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary ..." Ephraim the Syrian “You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Ambrose "Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a virgin not only undefiled, but a virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin” But my favorite prior to the development of Original Sin is Athanasius who declared her to be as pure as the Gold on the Ark. St. Athanasius of Alexandria ca. 297-373 O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all. O [Ark of the New] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides. Should I compare you to the fertile earth and its fruits? You surpass them, for it is written: “The earth is my foostool” (Isa. 66:1). But you carry within you the feet, the head, and the entire body of the perfect God. If I say that heaven is exalted, yet it does not equal you, for it is wrriten: “Heaven is My throne” (Isa. 66:1), while you are God’s place of repose. If I say that the angels and archangels are great - but you are greater than them all, for the angels and the archangels serve with trembling the One Who dwells in your womb, and they dare not speak in His presence, while you speak to Him freely. If we say that the cherubim are great, you are greater than they, for the cherubim carry the throne (cf. Ps. 80:1; 99:1), while you hold God in your hands. If we say that the serphim are great, you are greater than them all, for the seraphim cover their faces with their wings (cf. Isa. 6:2), unable to look upon the perfect glory, while you not only gaze upon His face but caress it and offer your breasts to His holy mouth… As for Eve, she is the mother of the dead, “for in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22). Eve took [fruit] from the tree and made her husband eat of it along with her. And so they ate of that tree of which God had told them: “The day you eat of it, you shall die” (Gen. 2:17). Eve took [fruit] from it, ate some of it, and gave some to her husband [that he might eat] with her, He ate of it, and he died. In you, instead, O wise Virgin, dwells the Son God: He, that is, Who is the tree of life. Truly He has given us His body, and we have eaten of it. That is how life came to all, and all have come to life by the mercy of God, your beloved Son. That is why your spirit is full of joy in God your Savior! (Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought by Luigi Gambero. Homily of the Papyrus of Turin) 6. The Ark - The early church immediately associated her as the Ark of the New Covenant and this does the trick: The case for Mary being not merely a _type_ of the Ark of the Covenant but is the fulfilment of the same comes from the fact that she experienced the direct, unmediated presence of God in the same way as was manifested upon the Ark, which meant that she had no impurity in her of any kind. 7. Post Original Sin quotes of Mary's Sinlessness is plentiful. I'm sure you're aware of them. So, as it stands we see the origin of the belief in scripture and then we see it believed in the church and then once Original Sin is developed we see it explained in the same manner as is held today. Premise 1: If the Early Church believed in Mary's Sinlessness then we would see in some form in the early church even before the development of Original Sin. Premise 2: We see it believed in the early church in various forms and see it in scripture. Conclusion: Therefore we have reason to believe the earliest Christians believed in Mary's sinlessness even before the doctrine of Original Sin (and after that doctrine we definitely see it)

[@tysonguess]

@YAJUN YUAN Sorry but none of your commentary challenged the argument provided Appeal to personal incredulity only expresses your belief but does nothing in regards to the argument provided which not only fulfills the challenge but did so from scripture, pre-original sin and post original sin. To defeat the argument you would have to provide the instance where the church founded upon Peter made a binding decision against the belief. Until then the argument cannot be defeated logically.

[@tysonguess]

@YAJUN YUAN Again, nothing in your response challenges the argument provided. Your opinion doesn't challenge any of the premises.

[@tysonguess]

@YAJUN YUAN And you probably wonder why no one is persuaded or takes you seriously, i'm sure... "You have no arguments," I literally proved a syllogism. "you claim you are a better bible translator" No, I stated a fact. The word "Charitoo" means 'to grace'. The present perfect form of Charitoo means a past completed action that continues uninterrupted into the future Strong's Concordance charitoó: to make graceful, endow with grace Definition: to make graceful, endow with grace Thayer's (New Testament Greek-English Lexicon) From G5485; to grace, "you want to ignore Catholic translation based on the original Greek." Saying she is 'favored' doesn't challenge the point. All one has to do is ask, "How is she favored" and the answer comes from the primary definition, "She is permanently graced" which means she is sinless. Nothing you have asserted challenges that. "You cite apocrypha" I cited historical documents which demonstrate a belief existed; That's what the historical method calls for when doing such a task. "You claim the church fathers teach something but you cannot find quotations from the classic collection of writings" Sorry but I exceeded the challenge. Not only did I find it in the early church but I found it in the Scriptures and taught by the church fathers. "Of course the Catholic church never officially condemned it as a heresy in the early church because no one believed those doctrines." Here you appeal again to your belief in the absence of an argument or witness testimony against the belief (which is circular and betrays your honesty). "What the Catholic church started believing in the 5th century is not relevant...." Then you better not believe the Trinity, the Homoousious Nature of God or the Hypostatic Union which all came to you by way of Papal approval and cannot be found even remotely in the manner they were later formulated early in the church or in scripture. Thanks

[@nikolakrcic1021]

Being completely honest, it is starting to get soo annoying hearing a protestant quoting the church fathers. Catholic doctrine is soo much of 'both and". So Protestants just to read a spiritual View and say see! But they don't know that those very same church fathers had also the other literal view as well.

[@worldpeacepatriot9448]

Correction : transubstantiation.....

[@DenisOhAichir]

Should have asked him about bleeding Hosts.

[@Catholic1391]

How does the bread bleed, I believe Jesus is saying he is really there.

[@ArchetypeGotoh]

Meaning no disrespect, but even the language use is a bit grating for me… “I hold what the Catholic Church professes to be revealed by God” vs “*I* describe *my* position as… *I* think… *my* opinion” If this protestant guy was made the Pope, even then no one would care about his personal opinion; what saves us is the Truth, and only One Church was founded by the Author of Truth

[@jefftravilla]

It’s interesting that Dr. Nemes talks about being in a minority with his views because I’ve always felt dissonance with Christianity about these types of issues. I’m going through RCIA with my fiancé now, and as much as I’m appreciating it in certain aspects, the dogmatic reasoning often comes across like backfilled mystical presuppositions that only exist to solve a theological problem rather than foundations that are firmly held because they feel and appear fundamentally true. It’s as if Dr. Nemes in my brain articulating things that I’ve felt a spiritual understanding about but could never form into cogent positions.

[@adifferentangle7064]

It is the one time when Jesus stops and says "no I'm not joking I'm being 100% serious", when he talks about the action of the Eucharist. He loses followers over it, because it sounds so insane, but he insists. So you cannot "compare the Eucharist to preaching the Gospel", you have to accept Jesus's own words if you're going to call yourself a Christian.

[@biblealone9201]

"‘Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed’" (John 6:47-55). "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant of my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes" (1 Cor. 11:23-26). 💋💋 "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27).