Do We Eat Flesh, Bread, Or What?

[NDfan]

How could you possibly say that Sola Scriptura does not divide? It most certainly does. It divides Jesus’ One Truth into however many different denominational meanings that are created by personal interpretation - thousands!

Always this is your problem. Private interpretation is not Sola Scripture. This just shows you don’t understand SS. Private interpretation does divide. But that’s not Sola Scriptura.

That is not the unity that Christ wanted. He established His Church, put the Apostles in charge with His Authority to bind and to loose, and promised to guide and protect His Church. He established unity - ONE Church. Sola Scriptura was a Luther invention in the 1500’s. As you can see, the devil is having a blast with Sola Scriptura.

It’s not an invention. It might interest you to know that at the Council of Trent this very issue came up and met with much discussion. Do you even know what Sola Scripture means? Let’s start there so we can get on the same footing

 

[NDfan]

Please clarify this for me. If the molecules of the bread are accidents and if all the aspects of the bread that we can detect with our senses are also accidents, then what is left that is the substance of the bread? Is it merely the concept or idea of what IS bread? In your understanding of transubstantiation is it that the idea of bread has been replaced with the idea of Jesus’s body? If so, sounds alot like a symbolistic understanding. What is there that changes from bread to body so as to make your view not one of symbolism?

Radical this post is incorrect. Gluten is a substance and certainly not an accident. But that’s the problem. Since the gluten is still present then transubstantiation could not have taken place.

 

[NDfan]

Jesus did not apologise for offending anyone who said they could not listen to Him speaking like that.

When Jesus called Himself a lamb, they understood it was symbolic.
When Jesus said He was the Light, they understood the symbol.
When Jesus said many times in symbolic terms the play on words - they didn’t think it was bad.

BUT when Jesus said in the Greek translation [BTW] to chew on His flesh [literally] they walked away because they UNDERSTOOD He was not kidding nor was He using symbolism.

Jesus turned to His Apostles and said ‘WIll you leave me as well??’

Jesus didnt turn to them and say ‘I was not speaking literally…’
No He said it literally, and He meant what He said.

Since Jesus is 100% Man 100% God when we recieve Him - we recieve His entirity because He is not divided into parts [See Arian heresies - Also Maricon and Nestorian]

And not only did He say this and also affirm this by His next words and actions - BUT also the earliest teachers of the Church also said this.

See First Apology by St Justin Martyr. Circa 130 AD.

Oh ok let’s quote Justin Martyr:

“Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [Isa 33:13-19] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in **remembrance **of His own blood, with giving of thanks.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch 70)

Hmm seems Martyr saw it as symbolic.

 

[NDfan]

Transubstantiation and the ‘Real Presence of Christ’ in the Eucharist are not the same thing.

Stephen I agree and said this over and over again. I agree with the real presence but not transubstantiation. Can you please explain your position?

Thanks

 

[Tonks40]

John 19:28Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” 29A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. 30When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Notice in the account in John 19 that the sponge soaked in the wine vinegar was placed on a stalk of hyssop and lifted to Jesus. Hyssop was what the Hebrews were instructed to use to paint the lambs blood around their doors the night of the Passover in Egypt.

The Lord’s Supper and thus the Eucharist, and the crucifixion can only be understood fully in the context of the Passover feast.

The Passover feast incidently was why they were gathered in the room for the Lord’s Supper, and also was noted as approaching at the beginning of John 6 where Jesus taught that He is the true Bread of Life.

It is important to study the OT passages regarding The Passover, as well as how God sustained His people with manna in the desert as they made their journey to the Holy Land…very important to study!!

God bless all!!!

This is what’s been missing in this thread!!! Thank you for reiterating this for us.

 

[ncgolf]

NC no I didn’t miss that. I was only commenting on the elements of the supper as being symbolic. I didn’t even think to comment on the rest. But we don’t get confirmation Jesus drank from the 4th cup. Only that HE was offered it and then died. Do you consider the offering a completion of the 4th cup? What’s interesting is that on the way to the cross Jesus refuses wine initially. I guess what I would ask is what impact does that have on the bread being symbolic or not??

John confirms the wine was drunk … John 19:28-29. Thus the true Passover was completed … the lamb sacrificed.

One has to put himself in the place of a 1st century Jew to see this. Put yourself as one who had celeberated the Passover as long as you can remember knowing your ancestors had done this for close to 2000 years. These people knew the Passover, its symbolism and imagery … and it’s purpose inside and out.

The Old Covenent was completed so a new one began … the Passover complete but not discarded. The true sacrifice, first revealed in Exodus, is now at hand. The meal before being bread with blood and meat of an umblemished lamb is now the same sacrifice but with Jesus, the eternal lamb … the meal still needing to be consumed … just like the Old Covenant but this meal is no longer symbolizing the release from bondage … but the real releasing of us from the bondage of sin.

A first century Jew could not miss this fact that the meal still needed to be consumed … and they didn’t, hence the Eucharist.

Jesus’s sacrifice is eternal … hence it is always present before God.

The Last Supper is the last supper of the Old Covenant …the last of the symbolic Passovers … clearing the way for the true sacrifice to be revealed.

The 4 cups now becoming one … for only one is needed, for it contains the blood of the eternal Lamb.

So I see the Old Covenant Passovers being symbolic … their meaning preparing the people for the New Covenant that for close to 2000 years had not transpired.

The New Covenant sacrifice is real, for it was God sacrificed, hence the same sacrifice … using Jesus’s word is real … it is made present by the power of God’s word.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen I agree and said this over and over again. I agree with the real presence but not transubstantiation. Can you please explain your position?

Thanks

If I took a tree from my land, cut it down, cut it into pieces, created a flat surface with three legs, and sat on it; Would I be sitting on a tree or a stool?

 

[broski234]

Oh broski you are so wrong on this. This is your problem brother. Again not patronizing you.

Gluten is not an accident it is a substance. So is alcohol which is why we call it substance abuse. Again I will post the definition of gluten:

gluten - the tough, viscid, nitrogenous substance remaining when the flour of wheat or other grain is washed to remove the starch.

Please notice the word substance. The elements that make up something are the substances. Substances combined make wine and bread. The accidents are red, soft, wet etc. etc. The outward things your senses pick up on. Your senses don’t pick up on gluten. They would pick up on the accidents of gluten.

From Websters Dictionary:

Gluten–a gray, sticky, nutritious mixture of proteins found in wheat.

Looks like it says mixture, not substance. Sorry brother, not buying your fallable, man-made definition. You can’t substitute “substance” in where the word mixture goes. They are the same thing.

 

[Radical]

NDfan,

Radical this post is incorrect. Gluten is a substance and certainly not an accident. But that’s the problem. Since the gluten is still present then transubstantiation could not have taken place.

I believe that you have misunderstood my post. I fully agree that gluten, DNA and alcohol are all substances and not accidents (as claimed by certain RCs here).

What I would like to know from those RCs however, is that, if for argument sake we agree that the various molecules are accidents too, then what else remains to be the substance of a thing such as bread? It seems from their point of view everything is an accident and so I would like to know from them what they believe constitutes the substance of bread.

If they respond that the substance of bread is what bread IS, then it seems to me that they would be saying that the substance is the participant’s concept of bread. If that is the case, then it would follow that those RCs are saying (that b/c transubstantiation changes the substance of bread to the substance of the body) that the concept of bread is changed to the concept of the body. Said another way, the participant looks at bread and thinks about bread to start with, but then considers it body afterwards. The change is in the participant’s mind where the concept dwells…and if is merely the participant’s concept that changes, then it is akin to a symbolic view.

In short, I am simply at a loss to understand what those RCs think constitutes the substance if molecules are accidents too. Hope that is clear. RCs, please clarify. Thanks.

 

[broski234]

Broski I do brother but you are arguing backwards. Jesus can do whatever HE wants. We both know that. HIS flesh as real food is us believing that HE sacrificed HIS flesh for us. Not real food as physically eating it. That’s why HE gave us the bread. To symbolize HIS body. If HE resides in the bread then it’s spiritually. Not according to transubstantiation.

Absolutely through Baptism and repentance of sin they are born into Christ.

But we are not claiming a substance change underneath. We are claiming a spiritual change through Baptism. It’s not the same thing. We are a new creature spiritually. This may result in our outward actions being different and more Christ-like. But our internal substances of DNA, Blood, bones etc. are still the same.

I think I answered this above.

Yes we agree. But brother you don’t understand the basics of what a substance is. Again not being patronizing. But you claim gluten is an accident. It is not. It is a substance and it still exists even after you claim the bread has changed completely. How can that be??? Either there was no change or Christ merged HIMSELF with the substances of the bread. But the church does not preach a merging. They teach a complete departure of the substances of bread and wine. Therefore the Gluten has to be gone. Again in Matthew 26, Christ says THIS Fruit of the Vine. Fruit of the vine is wine. So Christ is saying this wine referring to the liquid in the cup. This after you propose HE consecrated it to blood.

Yes and HE did to Moses as we both know in the burning bush. Now did GOD become the bush or did HE merge HIMSELF into the bush??

No brother. Listen carefully. This is where you are getting terribly confused. Oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, iron etc. are all substances. Period!!! They are not accidents. Not yelling here just being emphatic. GOD took all these substances and merged them together to create the human body. But each substance of oxygen, nitrogen etc. have their own accidents.

Yes which gluten is one. Salt is another. Yeast is another. The accidents of bread are white, soft etc. You are terribly confusing substances with accidents. If you get past this you will see the error with transubstantiation as the church defines it.

And again I have no issue with saying that transubstantiation takes place. Somehow you keep missing this so please pay attention to me here. I believe transubstantiation is a possibility. I don’t worry about explaining it. It just happens right? Right.

But unfortunately it doesn’t according to the way the church defines it. If the substance of bread and wine are completely departed, which according to the RCC they are, then gluten a substance of bread cannot still be present in the bread. It has to be gone. Unless Christ merged HIMSELF with the bread. But that’s not the teaching.

Yes I answered this already. HE could appear as a pen But if you say HE completely replaces the substance of the pen by consecration of the priest, then the substances of the pen must be gone leaving only GOD. Right?

I’m not disputing the fact that GOD can appear as bread. Somehow you are getting stuck on this.

Yes it is and I can be a cannibal and eat you.

Again I didn’t say HE couldn’t. But Jesus doesn’t teach HE changes the bread into HIMSELF. Jesus tells us that believing in HIM is what GOD commands in order to receive eternal life. Your flesh gives only short term nourishment. That’s Jesus’ point at the end of John 6. The flesh profits nothing. It’s the spirit that gives life. Jesus uses the bread symbolically for us to proclaim HIS death. The cup of wine represents HIS blood which is the new covenant.

This is kind of funny sorry. But this is so backwards. A cow IS food. It’s not a matter of changing it into food it already is.

Now here’s a question I want you to answer. If the substance of the cow is changed to the substance of a chicken, are you still eating a cow??? If Jesus somehow held the accidents of a cow in place you would still think you are eating a cow. But if we tested the meat it would be the substance of a chicken wouldn’t it. Of course. It would be white meat as opposed to red meat. Both still food but different foods. This is where your argument is too shallow and too simplified. It doesn’t relate to transubstantiation. I don’t question that the change can take place. I question IF it did. Big difference. If the change takes place then the substance is different.

You are talking yourself into one Gigantic Circle

 

[Stephen168]

In short, I am simply at a loss to understand what those RCs think constitutes the substance if molecules are accidents too. Hope that is clear. RCs, please clarify. Thanks.

If I took a tree from my land, cut it down, cut it into pieces, created a flat surface with three legs, and sat on it; Would I be sitting on a tree or a stool?

 

[sandusky]

From Websters Dictionary:

Gluten–a gray, sticky, nutritious mixture of proteins found in wheat.

Looks like it says mixture, not substance. Sorry brother, not buying your fallable, man-made definition. You can’t substitute “substance” in where the word mixture goes. They are the same thing.

Well I guess if Webster’s says it’s a mixture, it can’t be a substance :doh2:

 

[Radical]

If I took a tree from my land, cut it down, cut it into pieces, created a flat surface with three legs, and sat on it; Would I be sitting on a tree or a stool?

My concept of a tree includes a trunk, branches (all made of wood). My concept of a certain style of wooden stool includes a flat surface with three legs suitable for sitting upon (all made of wood). You have altered the wood so that it meets my concept of a wooden stool and no longer meets my concept of a tree. The trunk has been eliminated and a flat surface cut out of it. Branches are no longer emerging from a trunk, but rather three of them have been shaped into legs and fastened to the flat surface. (Note the molecules remain unchanged).

If this is to be any sort of useful analogy in explaining RC transubstantiation, what specifically has been altered. What thing in the bread has been eliminated, altered or shaped so as to create a real** bodily **presence. Are the molecules of the bread the same as the molecules of the body, just as the molecules of the tree are the same as the molecules of the stool?
You say substance has changed and that it doesn’t include molecules. So what has changed? I have clearly told you what has changed going from the substance of a tree to the substance of a stool. Please reciprocate with a clear explanation of what has changed going from the substance of a loaf to the substance of a body.

 

[sandusky]

Patrick Murebil:

If you held up a photograph of your Harley and told me this is my Harley, I would understand that that was a photograph of your motorcycle…and then I would like to go take a ride with you!!

You’d understand what I was saying.
Patrick Murebil:

But you have no creative power in your words, so your photograph would remain your photograph and thus we could not ride your photograph.

The same with the bread and wine. The Lord and I have spoken no differently.
Patrick Murebil:

It is a mere representation of the true Harley…

As are the bread and wine mere representations of the body and blood. (I don’t live in Maryland, sorry).
Patrick Murebil:

We cannot ride your true Harley merely by looking at a photograph of it…

Neither can you eat the Lord.
Patrick Murebil:

You also do not have the apostle Paul telling me (and anyone else who might want to ride your Harley) that by dropping your photograph on the ground, or spilling oil on your photograph, or standing on your photograph, that we have treated the true Harley in an unworthy manner. 1 Corinthians 11:27-32

Neither is that the gist of what Paul is telling the Corinthians. Paul says that it is the body only that’s not being discerned, and not the body and the blood. If one goes back in the context to v17, the body of which Paul is speaking is the church at Corinth, and not a piece of bread.

So one who treats his brother badly while at the supper partakes in an unworthy manner.

It’s not “dropping the photograph” or "spilling oil” on the photograph, or the bread, but the mistreating of those in the church about which Paul is speaking.
Patrick Murebil:

You also do not have the apostle Paul telling me (and anyone else who might want to ride your Harley) that by looking at a photograph of your Harley we actually participate in riding your true Harley. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17

Paul tells us, in the words of Jesus, that the supper is to be done “in remembrance” of the Lord.
Patrick Murebil:

And you do not have the creative power to say that the photograph of your Harley, must be eaten and drunk in order to truly ride your Harley.

Neither does Jesus say that at the Last Supper, but that we are to remember Him.
Patrick Murebil:

But Jesus’ words at the Last Supper, the Passover meal, with Jesus as the true Passover Lamb about to be sacrificed for the sins of you and me and everyone else… are, This is my body, This is my blood.

The Lord is my strength and my song.
Patrick Murebil:

And Jesus’ words in John 6 say that His flesh is true food and His blood is true drink, and whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood (participate in His sacrifice) will have eternal life.

Jesus defines His terms in the passage. Coming, eating and drinking in the passage all have to do with God’s calling, and giving faith.
Patrick Murebil:

Paul clearly teaches about participation in Jesus’ body and blood (1Cor. 10:16-17), and about dishonoring the body and blood of our Saviour by receiving the bread and wine unworthily (1Cor. 11:27-32)

I talked about that above.
Patrick Murebil:

And the fact that the Church from the beginning taught “The Real Presence” removes this event from metaphor to reality. It is the fulfillment in reality, of all the metaphors which pointed to the True Lamb of God. It is the good news for us sinners!!!

While it’s interesting to study the different positions of the Church throughout history, it’s not always a good idea to adopt her positions.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Oh ok let’s quote Justin Martyr:

“Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [Isa 33:13-19] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in **remembrance **of His own blood, with giving of thanks.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch 70)

Hmm seems Martyr saw it as symbolic.

But that is not the actual quote i was referring to.
SEE the quote of which I am speaking below…

Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. **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 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. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

 

[Nathan_C]

It is Jesus’s Body and Blood, as he said specifically more than 8 times. Let me explain how this is possible. The bread does not change “physically” into the Body of Christ, it changes in a deeper way. Its true essance, what it really is is the Body of Christ after the Consecration. Basicly, before the consecration the priest holds up bread with the chemical formula of, let’s just say for the hypothetical sense, H2O. After the consecration the priest holds up the BODY OF CHRIST with the chemical formula still of H2O. What it really is changes, in a much deeper way than just physically.

 

[elijio]

Please tell me why. And do you know what Sola Scriptura is??

Sola Scriptura is a man-made tradition born between the 16th century and the 18th century. Sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”) teaches that every teaching in Christian theology (everything pertaining to “faith and practice”) must be able to be derived from Scripture alone.

Here are some facts about it as well.

1. Jesus never taught sola scriptura.
2. The apostles never taught sola scriptura.
3. The disciples of the apostles never taught sola scriptura.
4. The Early Church Fathers never taught sola scriptura.
5. When the Bible was Canonized and published at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. by Catholics, it didn’t have anything in it that taught sola scriptura.
6. Martin Luther’s King James Version 1600 taught sola fide ‘‘faith alone’’ when he added the word ‘‘alone’’ but he didn’t teach sola scriptura.
7. The Bible contains no chapter or verse in Sacred Scripture that supports sola scriptura.
8. Sola scriptura itself is practiced in seperate and individual ways but it has no history dating back to the first Christians or God’s Church.
9. Some who practice sola scriptura also practice sola fide which is a contradiction. Which is it? Faith or Scripture?
10. Your interpretation of Scripture is just that. Your interpretation. That’s all. No more and no less. It has no support in Scripture.

If you disagree. Please show me the Biblical support for sola scriptura. Shouldn’t it be in the Bible? Chapters and verses?

Here’s an article explaining more.

chnetwork.org/journals/sola/sola5.htm

Peace.

 

[Mickey]

Milligan. And no I’m not trying to be uncharitable.

Gilligan. Yes you are.

 

[2John1vs3]

Only Christ will decide where HE goes and who HE resides in.

Which if you truly believe it, is a confession of the doctrine of unmerited election. Amen.

And reminds me of something I read in a recent book by “Catholic” author Gary Wills in “What Jesus Meant”.

I don’t have the book in front of me so I’ll paraphrase, and this is the gist:

“If Jesus Christ has promised his followers that wherever two or more of them are gathered in His name, He will be there in their midst with them, what need do a couple of Anglicans praying in Great Britain have for the pope?”

By extension, since the Lord has promised to come to us what need do we have for priests to bring Him to us?

And further, if He is explicit in who He is, and what He is here for, and who He has come to save, and the relationships He has and will have with those whom the Father has given Him, why is the evidence of the establishment of a sacrificial priesthood (in any way akin to what is practiced by the Roman church) so vague?

There’s plenty of evidence that Christ is our priest and the once for all sacrifice, but I don’t see Him bestowing that dignity explicitly on His followers in the way Rome claims for its priests. In fact “priests” or “priesthood” in the New Testament when it doesn’t refer to the Jews and the high priest of the Jews, refers exclusively to Jesus as our High priest. The priesthood we see from the dark ages onward is something new, NOT envisioned by Our Lord and the words He gave us in Holy Scripture. (By the way “priest” in 1 Timothy 5 is better translated as “elder” as it is in the AV1611 King James Bible. In fact “elder” is the term Peter ascribes to himself in 1 Peter 5:1, no mention of “pope” or pontifex maximus (which I believe is what the Caesars chose to call themselves.)

 

[Mickey]

Prodigal I understand it just fine. It’s your ignorance that is getting in your own way.

Sadly, it is you who are ignorant—and you do not even realize it.