The Instigator
michaellofton
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
mateoeh
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Catholic Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus according to Scripture and the Church Fathers.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
michaellofton
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 821 times Debate No: 67630
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

michaellofton

Pro

Scripture affirms that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus. Jesus Himself spoke of the time when the Apostles would eat His flesh and drink His blood in John 6:53-55, which says:

"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. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.' "

1 Corinthians 10:16 confirms that the words spoken by Jesus in John 6 apply to the Eucharist as St. Paul said:

"The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"

The early Church Fathers also teach that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus, as the following quotes from the second century demonstrate:

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2"7:1 [A.D. 110]).

""We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:33"32 [A.D. 189]).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life"flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).
mateoeh

Con

You have no other support for your claim than the fact that the Bible says that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. What evidence do you have that the Bible is true? The fact that the Bible calls itself flawless is not support for its validity, since you would need some kind of outside proof that it is; otherwise, you are begging the question (note: begging the question, a logical fallacy, is different from raising the question). To see how this is so, let's imagine that I wrote a book in which I claim to be God. In this book I would make two statements:
1) Unicorns exist (the equivalent of 'the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ')
2) This book is the word of God (who is always truthful) and is therefore free of error
Let's say that I gave you this book and said, 'Hey, this book is true! Unicorns really exist!' You would likely say 'Why should I believe that this book is true?' From that point, using the logic you employed to support the Eucharist being the body and blood, I could start a circular argument like this:
1) Because the book is written by God. (how do you know that?)
2) Because the book says so. (how do you know the book is right?)
3) Because the book is never wrong. (how do you know that?)
4) Repeat steps 1-3
If I have nothing to support my fictitious book other than the book itself, then, by employing the logic above to defend its validity, I am committing a logical fallacy. A fallacious argument is not able to support a claim; this is not to say that just because someone uses a logical fallacy to support a claim that the claim is necessarily wrong; if you can support your claim by other means then it can be considered true. However, if the only evidences you have to back up your claim are fallacious arguments then your claim cannot be considered true by any right-minded individual.
Debate Round No. 1
michaellofton

Pro

I wouldn't mind debating the issues you raised, but they are simply not relevant to our debate. Read the resolution again, it states: "The Catholic Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus according to Scripture and the Church Fathers" not, "are the Scriptures that claim the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus historically reliable". I wouldn't mind debating these issues, but they simply aren't what is being debated here. My resolution is clearly one that is exegetical in nature, not one that is oriented to historical-criticism or the reliability of the New Testament.
You explicitly stated: "You have no other support for your claim than the fact that the Bible says that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ." At this point, you lost the debate, because you conceded that which we were debating, which is, whether Scripture and the Church Fathers teach that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus. I must say, I'm very disappointed because I was really looking forward to debating this issue.
mateoeh

Con

You probably should have picked a better topic name, then. The definition of 'according to' is 'as stated by', and when you replace according with its definition in your topic it says: The Catholic Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus as stated by Scripture and the Church Fathers. This topic clearly outlines a debate about whether the Eucharist is the body and blood or not, not whether the Church and the Bible accepts that the Eucharist is the body and blood. I also assumed that no one would argue whether or not the Church and Bible accept that claim, since it is a very widely accepted fact that they do. I apologize if I wasted your time.
Debate Round No. 2
michaellofton

Pro

I thought the resolution was sufficiently constructed. Actually, many Protestants deny that Scripture teaches the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus, which is the target audience I intended for this debate.
mateoeh

Con

I suppose it was just an unfortunate misunderstanding.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
Good idea.
Forfeit.
Posted by michaellofton 2 years ago
michaellofton
It was a misunderstanding but no big deal. I would encourage people not to vote on this debate either way since there was a misunderstanding about the topic of the debate.
Posted by michaellofton 2 years ago
michaellofton
I no longer wish to debate you after you called me a "fake" and a "fraud" when you don't even know me. Please disregard my challenge to you. I'm still willing to debate the nature of the Eucharist with others though, if anyone else is interested.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
You challenge me to Debate you that I wasn't speaking spiritually or metaphorically?
Really?
Why do you believe that, anyway?

Once again, my name WASN'T JESUS.
( THOU SHALT NOT LIE!
It really doesn't matter what YOU WANT to call me! )
My name ISN'T, & WASN'T, Greek, let alone English.
I had a HEBREW name, pronounced Yeshua.
The New Testament was written in Greek.
When it was translated into modern languages, they should have gone back
& used the Hebrew Pronunciation of my name, or something like that.
Modern English didn't even EXIST back in Biblical times-
it was first used CENTURIES later.
If you want to call me something referring to me back then, you can call me Christ ...
"Yeshua" is kind of awkward ...
Posted by michaellofton 2 years ago
michaellofton
Vajrasattva-LeRoy,

I'd be happy to debate your assertion that he was speaking spiritually. Please accept my debate challenge and I'll state whey this is not the case.

As to the prounouncement of his name, I am using the English form based on His name in the Greek New Testament. I have no problem calling him by either name as long as we know Who we are talking about. Yes, I know that is his name in Hebrew, I lived in Israel for 7 years and spoke Hebrew fluently.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
I think that you'll find that I was speaking metaphorically or symbolically.
It was stated that
"He who sows to the flesh reaps corruption & death,
while he who sows to the spirit will reap life, & life eternal. "
I was apparently referring to my Spirit Body.

Once Again:
My name wasn't Jesus-
I had a Hebrew name, pronounced Yeshua.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
michaelloftonmateoehTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: CON didn't understand the resolution being debated; PRO made a solid case.
Vote Placed by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
michaelloftonmateoehTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceeded
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
michaelloftonmateoehTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded the debate in the very first sentence of his round one response.