Does scripture actually teach transubstantiation?

[JReducation]

TRANSUBSTANTIATION CAN BE FOUND IN JOHANINE THEOLOGY

Of all the Gospels, the 6th chapter of John’s Gospel is the only one that goes into great lengths to discuss the Eucharist. Before anyone threatens to send me to the gallows, please hear me out. If we are to make proper sense of John’s message, we must understand his Gospel. What I’m about to lay out here can be proven historically.

1. John’s Gospel was written about 100 years after the birth of Christ.
2. It was not written by John. There are several chapters in the Gospel that prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that there were several authors involved and that the original may have been shorter. Chapters seem to have been added for theological clarity.
3. There is agreement on the part of biblical scholars that the source of the Gospel was an eye-witness, someone who knew Jesus. Even though the authors were several. The reason for this belief comes in point 4.
4. John’s Gospel is not synoptic. From beginning to end its focus is theological. It does not attempt to give a historical account of Jesus’ life, teachings and work. It attempts to capture Jesus’ divinity, humanity, Messiahship and present the reader with all of the necessary arguments to prove that Jesus is the Word of God who is became flesh and that all things come into existence through him.
5. This Gospel clearly wants to drive home that Jesus is the pre-existent Son of God, the second person of the Trinity and the only Savior.
6. The writers organized this gospel into four parts: a) Prologue, b) Book of Signs, c) Book of Glory and d) Resurrection and appearance.
7. Jesus’ discourse on his body and blood being bread appears in Chapter 6, which is in the Book of Signs.
8. John obviously taught his disciples that one of the Signs of Jesus’ Divinity and Messiahship was that Christ would give his body as bread to be eaten. This was to be a sign of the God-Man, not a symbol, because it appears in the Book of Signs.
9. The Gospel of John is a theological work. In theology, there is a very clear difference between sign and symbol. A sign gives grace. Grace is the life of God. We find this understanding of grace in Luke’s Gospel when the angel tells Mary that she is filled with grace.
10. If the Eucharist is a sign of Christ’s divinity and Messiahship, then it gives grace. If grace is a share in the divine life, it can only be shared by the divine himself. Therefore, the Eucharist must truly be Christ, the divine and pre-existent Word of God who becomes flesh.
11. John’s prologue is clear. The Word becomes flesh; it does not simply appear as flesh. In referring to Christ’s flesh, John does not use metaphor or figurative language.
12. In addition, it would make no sense to include a symbol in a book of signs. This Gospel is written at a very high intellectual level. Such a fundamental mistake as to include a symbol that has no saving power among signs that give grace, jeopardize the credibility of John’s Gospel. His writers and editors would have extracted such a mistake.
13. They included “the bread that I will give is my flesh” (Jn 6, 51) because it was a true sign, not a symbol. They received this from John and his disciples and they believed it.
14. If it is a sign, then it gives grace. To give grace, it must be Christ himself.
15. If it was only a symbol, metaphor, allegory, then it is in the wrong book. If the book is in error, then is it’s divine inspiration credible?
16. If we believe that this Gospel is divinely inspired, we must then accept its organization. We must accept the theology that it teaches, including what it says about the Word of God becoming flesh and offering that flesh for us to eat.
17. If the sign that is promised is that we will receive a bread that is really the body of Chirst.
18. Christ would not give us a dead body that does not give life.
19. And we know that symbols do not give life, but signs do.
20. There are seven signs in the Book of Signs in John’s Gospel and in all seven the author makes sure that we understand that the sign gives life. To give life it must be life.

That, in a nutshell is John’s theology which supports the theology of transubstantiation. One of the signs of Salvation (the Paschal Mystery) is that Jesus will give a bread to eat that is really his flesh, not really bread, regardless of what it looks like. Jesus looked like a first-century Jew, but he was the Eternal Word of God.

JR

 

[JustaServant]

Having spent five years in the Independant Fundamental Baptist Movement, I remember that the church I attended would only have communion service maybe once a year ( crackers and grape juice) they would state that having communion every church service, it becomes a ritual. The preacher also stated that by the bread and wine becoming the actual body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; that by Catholics receiving communion it is cannibalism. I am not making this up, I thank God everyday for opening my eyes and calling me out of that movement.
God Bless You

I used to be one of those guys.
Always amazed me that preachers would spend 20 minutes (basically a second sermon) in every fundamentalist communion service driving home the point that ‘this doesn’t mean anything, its just a symbol.’
If one has to spend that much time telling people that communion doesn’t mean anything, why do it at all?
Many times it appeared as if the preacher was trying to convince himself.

 

[JReducation]

I used to be one of those guys.
Always amazed me that preachers would spend 20 minutes (basically a second sermon) in every fundamentalist communion service driving home the point that ‘this doesn’t mean anything, its just a symbol.’
If one has to spend that much time telling people that communion doesn’t mean anything, why do it at all?
Many times it appeared as if the preacher was trying to convince himself.

I grew up Jewish. I never heard a Rabbi spend time teaching us how wrong Christians were. I believe the reason for this is because these were men of faith. If one has faith, one believes and preaches what one believes. As one Rabbi said to me when I went to discuss my inclination toward Catholicism, “If Catholicism has something to bring to the table that Judaism has not brought, it would be wrong to ignore it. A Jew must do what God wants, not what pleases self. Make sure that this is a call from God, not just a desire to join the mainstream.”

I found this to be the most useful spiritual adivice I ever heard. Fundamentatlist Protestantism never attracted my attention, because unlike my Jewish faith which is based on God’s selection, love and commandments, I felt fundamentalism was based on rejecting everything that other believers hold dear. I could not subscribe to a religion that is built on the wrongness of something else, rather than the rightness of what we belive.

Real faith is not about finding fault, but finding truth.

JR

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Can God do anything?

God can only do good!

Can God change the substance of bread and wine and leave the appearences?

Of course!

Why is that so hard to believe?

People believe in their own souls that they cannot see but refuse to believe Jesus when He says 'This is My body."

Why?

If Jesus changes the substance of the bread and wine into His body, blood, soul, and divinity how does that bring dishonor to Christ?

And if Jesus truely speaks the truth and He said “I will be with you always” wouldn’t the “I” that He spoke of consist of more than just His spiritual presence?

Jesus was God and man–if He was with us just spiritually whoopi-de-doo!

Any follower of any pagan god could claim that!

How many religions do you know of that claim that their god is with their followers–body, blood, soul, and divinity–and not only that but that when their disciples consume Him and eat Him that they are present with Him body, blood, soul, and divinity?

Now that’s the real God!

Do you think that Satan would want people to believe in a Christ that powerful or Not believe in a christ that powerful?

The answer is obvious!

What isn’t obvious but is also true is that the root reason that the people in John 6:66 left Jesus wasn’t that they just couldn’t understand what he was saying–No!–it was that the possibility of him speaking the truth–of actually being able to offer Himself to be eaten and to Literally be one with those who partook of Him

that was too radical for them to handle!

If one believed in that they would truely worship such a God!

And not only that but a God that great would force them to believe not only because of what they could see and logically deduce–No!–a God like that would require them to believe Against the things that they could see!

that is the measure of Real faith and real obedience!

Anyone can believe in a spiritual god like Caspar the friendly ghost!

but believing that God is present body, blood, soul, and divinity in the actual physical here and now and that that Jesus wishes to commune with us

now that is the measure of true faith!

Just don’t tell me that many don’t understand it–the disciples didn’t understand it–but they believed Jesus because He was the truth and if Jesus said “this is My body” then it had to be true regardless of what the disciples saw with their own eyes.

If you don’t have faith like that you are not fit for the kingdom of God!

Faith like that will cause you to be truely born again!

and when you are the real change in your very being and substance will be a dim mirror of the even greater change that Jesus accomplishes in the Eucharist!

Did not the apostle Philip one time say “Lord show us the Father”!

that statement by Philip tried the Lord’s patience!

the Protestant Christ is the Christ of Philip on that occasion saying “Lord show us the Father”!

Jesus already has shown us the Father and you have to see Him with eyes beyond the physical–that is true faith

But not only that–why can’t people see that Jesus leaving us the eucharist makes perfect sense because if you really want a personal relationship with Christ

the Eucharist is the ultimate personal relationship with Christ–it’s so personal it involves the Lord’s body, blood, soul, and even His divinity!

Can you believe it–Jesus gives us the opportunity to commune with ALL of Him!

compared to that a “spiritual” experience of a memorial of the Lord’s death with non changing in substance symbols is the ultimate slap in the face to Jesus!

that’s what Satan loves to do!

Quit slapping Jesus–believe in Him and come experience Him in the Real Eucharist at His real Catholic Church!

 

[CentralFLJames]

If He wasn’t choosing that He wouldn’t LITERALLY pound it into people’s ears over and over again and He wouldn’t have let them leave in John 6:66!

[SIGN]The Real choice is whether Jesus is a Liar or the people who left in John **6:66 **are liars![/SIGN]

I am kind of disappointed that no fundamentalist has yet found the mark of the beast here in the literal read of the chapter and verse reference for John 6:66. They missed an opportunity to develop a defensive come back to Christ’s commandment to partake of the Eucharist & could have claimed that those who left were the the founding fathers of Protestantism & the very first to unyoke themselves from the Catholic Church’s first pope (Christ) to get their early tickets on the rapture bus.



James

 

[sambos671]

Thanks JReducation,

I was wondering about the move to catholicism. And thanks on the synopsis on the Gospel of John. It deffinately clears things up about its structure. I never went to seminary though that hasn’t stopped me from study. My view about clearing up the matter was to find the earliest christian writings to see what they said about the matter. Clement, Ignatius, Justin all indicated an actual belief in the Eucharist as the body and blood of Jesus. If it were a symbol, Clement would not have been so perplexed at the church in corinth. Also they are the leaders (Clement and Ignatius) right after the apostles which leads me to think that 1) they changed the teachings of the apostles immediately and during their life time or 2) this is what the apostles taught themselves. The first one would lead me away from christianity because none of the New Testiment writings could be trusted since they were assembled by these early leaders. So the second must be true in which case Jesus is the “bread of life” which came down from Heaven. Or the true manna (what is it?) which give life. And the bread and wine are the body and blood.

 

[JustaServant]

I believe one of the major factors in a disbelief of the Eucharist is that it goes hand in hand with a disbelief in the supernatural. As long as Jesus is confined to a book in time and space, they feel safe with that. But an encounter with the Living Jesus in the here and now? Jesus not confined to a book? It terrifies them.
I believe that is why you find many charismatics entering into an understanding of the Eucharist. They are looking for something MORE. When the tongues and ‘faith healings’ and ‘slayings in the spirit’ grow old and thin, they are willing to look at how Christianity has connected to the Living Christ for 2000 years.
Jesus made it so simple.
We make it so complicated.

 

[JReducation]

Thanks JReducation,

I was wondering about the move to catholicism. And thanks on the synopsis on the Gospel of John. It deffinately clears things up about its structure. I never went to seminary though that hasn’t stopped me from study. My view about clearing up the matter was to find the earliest christian writings to see what they said about the matter. Clement, Ignatius, Justin all indicated an actual belief in the Eucharist as the body and blood of Jesus. If it were a symbol, Clement would not have been so perplexed at the church in corinth. Also they are the leaders (Clement and Ignatius) right after the apostles which leads me to think that 1) they changed the teachings of the apostles immediately and during their life time or 2) this is what the apostles taught themselves. The first one would lead me away from christianity because none of the New Testiment writings could be trusted since they were assembled by these early leaders. So the second must be true in which case Jesus is the “bread of life” which came down from Heaven. Or the true manna (what is it?) which give life. And the bread and wine are the body and blood.

JOHN’S CHRISTOLOGY

I’m glad this was helpful. Now you know where Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp and the other Church Fathers got their theology on the Eucharist from. It was handed down by the Apostles to the first Christian community. There are other references such as the Emaus story and the narratives on the first Christian community in Acts.

Many people miss the messages in John’s Gospel completely, because they are reading it as biblical history. But when you compare it to the other Gospels, you realize that John is really writing theology. If I had to assign his Gospel to a specific genre, I would call it Historical Theology. He uses historical facts to substantiate his theology. His purpose for writing is not to give us a blow by blow story on Jesus. This had already been done by the Synoptic gospels. John assumes that his readers are already familiar with the Jesus Story. As he is writing much later than the other evangelists and he is also writing in a different context. His readers are more intellectual. Not only did they want to know about Jesus, but they wanted to know what it all meant.

In addition, most people don’t know that John was not only a theologian, but also a mystic. He is able to see beyond what is visible to the naked eye. This is a gift that the Holy Spirit gives only to mystics through the spiritual union between the soul and God.

When speaking of the Bread of Life, John is able to see beyond the simple words and the historical event. Through his mystical union with the Divine, he sees things as God sees them. This is not through his own power, but a gift of the Holy Spirit that is given to very few people. The problem arises when mystics try to put into words what they see. Often words don’t do it justice.

John looks at the Eucharist and see Christ’s body and blood. He hears Christ’s words and he understands them at a deeper level. He is able to connect them with the pre-existing Logos. In other words, he is able to see that Christ has always been there and will always be there. Now that he has entered human history, through the Incarnation, he not about to exit human history. Instead, his glorified person (body, blood, soul, divinity and humanity) will continue to be present in the world. The sign or proof of this presence is the Eucharist or Bread of Life.

It’s important to undersand that for John Christ gives both spiritual and physical life. We see this in his Prologue. He speaks of all things being created through the Word and in the Word. The Word gives both spiritual and physical life. The Word takes on physical life in the Prologue. In the resurrection, the Word is brought back to physical life. The Word is not about to abdicated his physical presence in the world. To make his physical presence available to humanity, he must use elements that are found all over the world. What society does not have bread and wine? So, the bread and wine will become his body and blood, allowing him to be all things to all men, not just those who are in the same room or space with him. Christ is able to be physically present everywhere for all eternity, because he has conquered death.

This in a nutshell is John’s Christology.

I hope you enjoy it, because it’s truly beautiful.

JR

 

[CHRISTISKING]

JustaServant;3371757]I believe one of the major factors in a disbelief of the Eucharist is that it goes hand in hand with a disbelief in the supernatural. As long as Jesus is confined to a book in time and space, they feel safe with that. But an encounter with the Living Jesus in the here and now? Jesus not confined to a book? It terrifies them.

This statement couldn’t be further from the truth and you should be ashamed for making it. Many of my fellow believers in Christ experience the real living Jesus every time they Pray, sing, or spend time with Him. Remember, you guys are the ones that criticize us when we say that we have a “Personal” relationship with Christ. If you think that the eucharist is the only way to have an encounter with the real living Jesus then your not only limiting our relationship with Christ, but yours as well. We should experience Jesus in every aspect of our lives.

I believe that is why you find many charismatics entering into an understanding of the Eucharist. They are looking for something MORE. When the tongues and ‘faith healings’ and ‘slayings in the spirit’ grow old and thin,

Where do you get your stats? There was just a story on ABC news the other night that stated the Roman Catholic Church has lost more members than any faith tradition because of affiliation swapping.

Jesus made it so simple.
We make it so complicated.

I agree!

 

[CentralFLJames]

I…very first to unyoke themselves from the Catholic Church’s first pope (Christ) to get their early tickets on the rapture bus.
James

Correcting a technical error in the above post. Christ is the permanent head of The Church and High Priest for God’s People - not Pope. Pope by definition is Christ’s earthly Vicar.

James

 

[JReducation]

This statement couldn’t be further from the truth and you should be ashamed for making it. Many of my fellow believers in Christ experience the real living Jesus every time they Pray, sing, or spend time with Him. Remember, you guys are the ones that criticize us when we say that we have a “Personal” relationship with Christ. If you think that the eucharist is the only way to have an encounter with the real living Jesus then your not only limiting our relationship with Christ, but yours as well. We should experience Jesus in every aspect of our lives.

There is a misunderstanding here. I’m not sure how the message fell through the cracks, but it appears to have done so.

Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology on the Eucharist was originally received from the writings of John, Paul and the early Fathers of the Church. It was also transmitted by word of mouth and by practice.

The teaching on the Eucharist says that there is a physical union between Christ and the recipient of the Eucharist. As John says, we received the real Body and Blood of Christ in his glorious nature. Therefore, there is a reciprocity of existence where the physical Christ and the physical believer share the same life and space at the moment when we receive the Eucharist.

With that, both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church have always taught that we can achieve spiritual union with Christ through prayer (recited or sung, spontaneous or in group). We can achieve spiritual union with Christ through fellowship with each other, reflection on the scriptures, contemplation of the wonders of creation, the practice of virtue, the avoidance of sin, and sometimes through mystical experiences that are special gifts that the Holy Spirit seems to give to a small group of people.

On the issue of experiencing Christ’s presence spiritually, there is not difference between Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants. The difference is on the Eucharist, the physical union with Christ in a very literal manner.

I hope this helps.

JR

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Why is the Physical reality of Jesus in the Eucharist harder to understand than His physical resurrection from the dead?

If the Physical Resurrected Christ indeed lived with His disciples after death–how hard a strectch is is to believe that that same physical Christ will be with us to the end of the age?

You know–the physical actual Christ that told Thomas to touch His pierced hands?

Jesus Christ is bigger than a resurrected God man that went to Heaven and only spiritually communes with His followers!

That is not “Personal” when it comes to human beings because the human being is more than just spirit and soul–the human person is also entertwined with the physical body!

In the eucharist we commune with the ENTIRE person of Christ and that includes the body!

Anyone who doesn’t do that does not have a personal relationship with Christ!

They may have a spiritual relationship with Christ but it isn’t Personal because Personhood does involve the body of Christ!

In other words absent the Eucharist–if you’re not in Heaven–then you don’t have a personal relationship with Christ!

Rejoice and let that statement convert you or tare your hair out like the Pharisees and other followers of Jesus and leave unbelieving just like they did in John 6:66!

The real question to ask yourself is do you trust Jesus and have enough faith and belief inHhim to believe Him when it appears like what He says is contrary to what your physical eyes see?

If the answer to that remains “No” until the end of your life and you always reject the truth of the Eucharist unrepentedly until death then you will have “no life in you” not because of what the Catholic Church teaches but because of what Jesus taught!

Do you really want to bet your soul on that?

 

[JustaServant]

Indeed, that is why the Eucharist is the most important factor in a Chrisitan’s life. A Covenant meal in which He is the Host and the Meal itself.
When a Chrisitan removes the Eucharist from the center of the his life, he is left with trying to find something to replace it with.

 

[JRBB]

didnt Christ say that he would always be with the apostles? a symbol represents something that is not present. Christ is the eucharist! i cant give you any biblical support than what was given before. it comes down to faith . Christ is a door because he is the only way into heaven .Christ is a vine because all good and life come from him to us, which are the branchs . if he was misunderstood , he would always go into greater detail about what he was saying. example : being born -again . we cant go back into our mothers womb . Jesus goes onto explain that we must be born of water and the spirit.through baptism and the power of the Holy Spirit. when Jesus called the vine himself , he went onto say that we cant live with out him . when he said that he would give them bread to eat and that bread that would be his flesh, the people mumbled among them saying how can this man give us his flesh to eat. Jesus said truly, truly unless ye he the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you . to be continued…

 

[Michael_Francis]

Your cooperation and courtesy in not reopening old/dormant threads is requested:

-1. the issues that spurred them are often no longer “hot” or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally

-2. posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread

Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he is quoting was made 6 months ago).

Thread closed.