Catholics and Orthodox and Lutherans think Jesus is really, that is physically, present in the Eucharist.

The story is that Jesus enacted his violent death before it happened by taking bread saying it was his body and a cup saying it was his blood shed. The two are separated indicating that the blood would be drained out of him. Given that the words saying the bread is his body and the wine his blood Jesus is claiming to be absent for he is dead.

The Churches confuse things further by saying it is Jesus' magical resurrection body that is present and his blood too.

This makes no sense either. He did not say that it was anything other than his non-resurrected remains.  

From Pentecostal Theology According to the Theologians An Introduction by Hosborn Twelve

First, in the Last Supper passages from the Synoptic Gospels, the context of the meal is not Jesus‟ presence but his absence. Jesus is preparing his disciples for his departure, and they will thereafter eat the meal in his remembrance because he will not be present with them in the meal until he eats it again with them in the Kingdom of God (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:16). By this point in the narratives, the readers of all three Synoptic Gospels have already been warned that the unthinkable will take place, namely, the departure of the bridegroom (Matt 9:14-15; Mark 2:18-20; Luke. 5:33-35).

To the extent that fasting often accompanied mourning, there is nothing surprising in Jesus‟ assertion that the time of the bridegroom's presence—a time of joy and feasting—is not the time for fasting. The shock is in his claim that the bridegroom will be taken away, during which time his followers will fast in his absence.

[Luke 5:33-35: “And they said to him, „The disciples of John fast often and offer prayers, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink.‟ And Jesus said to them, „Can you make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days‟” (RSV).

Concerning the idea of Jesus‟ absence, specifically in Mark, see Werner H. Kelber, The Kingdom in Mark: A New Place and a New Time (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1974), 20, 123. Cf. Joel Marcus, Mark 1-8: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary (New York, NY: Doubleday, 2000), 236-38.]

The Last Supper passages are best read as a similar preparation for Jesus' departure, although one that carries more urgency given its closer proximity to his death.

Second, I Cor 10:16 does not refer to mystical union with Christ's body and blood, which are believed to be somehow present in the Lord's supper. Paul rhetorically appeals to the idea that the celebration of the supper creates “fellowship between the participant and Christ's body and blood in order to parallel that fellowship with the fellowship between those who sacrifice to idols and the demons to whom such sacrifices are ultimately made (10:19-20), all in order to convince the Corinthians that they should avoid idolatry (10:14). This “fellowship” with Christ's body and blood refers to the common interest that all of the Corinthians have in Jesus' suffering and death, a Pauline soteriological metaphor also found in Rom 6:3-5 and Phil 3:8-11. Paul follows his rhetorical questions by stating that the many who share in the one bread are one body (I Cor 10:17) with a common stake in and commitment to Jesus' death, which the Corinthians should demonstrate by celebrating the supper only after all have assembled (11:33-34). In short, neither the Synoptic Gospels nor I Corinthians point to Christ's presence, but rather his absence.

Now Catholics worship the bread and wine of communion as Jesus himself.  They see them, so to speak, as the flesh and blood of God incarnate.  If they are not then this is clearly idolatry.  It is even worse than the worship of statues of Hercules for Jesus said he was absent.  It is not only the idolatry of false worship but the idolatry of ignoring Jesus to worship what you want.

My note: Paul says that those who take the bread and cup and don't recognise the body eat and drink judgment to themselves and will get sick and that is why some people have died.
This denies that the ceremony is really all about celebration. It is not a Eucharist. It seems if you don't let healing come to you when you take the bread and cup then bad things will happen. It is impossible to deny that God must go out of his way to kill some of them. Getting sick is one thing but killing takes a new level of intervention. The rite is not a blessing for all but a conditional blessing for the righteous and a curse for the rest.

Given that the New Testament records Jesus' prophecies after the event and that Paul writes as if he got the last supper story from a vision it is not likely that Jesus could predict his bloody death and enact it before it happened.  Is that why Paul is so defensive?  Is that why he wants people to be afraid of doubting or questioning as in "failing to discern the body of the Lord"?  Threats do not show the supper to be of a credible orgigin.


No Copyright