Does scripture actually teach transubstantiation?

[CentralFLJames]

The word “transubstantiation” is not specifically mentioned in scripture any more so than we are to find the word’s “trinity” nor “Protestant” nor “Luther” etc… There is such a thing as tradition and authority that have always been integral with God’s people (ref. Judaic teachings and cabalistic traditions). Traditions and authoritative teaching of scripture were always consistent with truth safeguards set in place to prevent heretical or wild ideas arising from private scriptural interpretation. Thus the faithful in new generations very distant from the original prophesies were prevented from spinning their own new theology to suit what they wanted to believe.

Thus the Early Christian Church Fathers (of Jewish tradition and social practice) were also careful in safeguarding the entire corpus of truth from being nibbled away at by men serving their own appetite through private interpretations (a practice very popular in the legion of Protestant sects). But this practice of rationalizing scripture to suit one’s own tastes is nothing new. It is in fact the same thing Jesus faced in his own time. In the time of Jesus’ teaching we had “rational” men, ostensibly pious, but spiritually corrupt or in blatant error (e.g. Pharisees and Sadducees) lacking faith in Jesus. So they often tried to trip him up with false or insincerely motivated questions formed along lines of human reasoning (e.g. render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s). Their intent was less to learn but more to discrediting the truth or to make themselves feel OK in their own fractional truths. What is ironic is they had nothing to gain by doing this to Jesus other than to “save their own lives” and promote their own agenda. The irony is that Jesus wanted to save them yet they were so indoctrinated with falsehoods and lack of faith that they made cases for justifying beliefs that would lead them to hell.

It would seem that that same pattern is alive and well here in this line of questioning.

As objective evidence that the early fathers believed in the literal aspects of Jesus present in the Eucharist I offer St. Ignatius of Antioch.

Saint Ignatius of Antioch (also known as Theophorus) (ca. 35-107)[1] was the third Bishop or Patriarch of Antioch and a student of the Apostle John.

On the Eucharist, Ignatius wrote in his letter to the Smyrnaeans:

“ 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. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1

Those that rely on scripture alone without benefit of Church Teaching, Authority and Tradition are simply not getting the whole truth and will not find any comfort in a line of reasoning that ignores these valid sources nor will it benefit from the Revelations of The Holy Spirit. The Jews slaughtered their Messiah after waiting thousands of years for him because they could not recognize Him. It is any wonder that men thousands of years after Christ’s time calling themselves “Christian” can not recognize His truth? What is irrational though and in the end self defeating is that some always seem hell bent to go out of their way to find reasons not to believe perfectly good evidence of truth that is put right under their noses.

Some things never change and some will always be left behind to their own private interpretation to their own misfortune.

James

 

[HailMary]

Well, if it’s common sense, perhaps you would help me understand it. Since it’s common, it should be easy to explain, right?

I will help you understand:
The earliest Christians believed in the Real Presence.

Actually, common sense would say that it is bread that is present even after transubstantiation supposedly happens. Yet you dismiss this, and hold on to your faith that common sense is wrong. Kind of contradictory, to claim common sense in one area, and reject it in another on the same doctrine, don’t you think?

Common sense may say that, but common sense would suggest humans cannot be raised from the dead; its faith that counts here. It takes more faith to believe as a Catholic on this matter than what you propose. I do not dismiss it, I take it on faith; faith that you do not share.

 

[pneuma07]

PCM: *It’s not unlike if someone asked me for driving directions. I might draw a line on a piece of paper and say “Okay, this is highway X”. I don’t actually mean that the line on the page is physically the highway. I mean that it represents the highway.

The Greek “esti” seems to have a variety of meanings, very must like our English “is”. It can be figurative or literal, etc.*…

1. since in different languages “is” can indeed sometimes mean “represents”, you’re right in keeping the possibility of a symbolic interpretation linguistically open, a priori.

Let’s consider then further points here.

If you want to mean simply “is”, and not “represents”, with your “is”, you normally use …“is”.
If you mean “represents” and use “is”, this appears to imply, as in the fine example of our highway, an obvious contextual or situational understanding.
Therefore, it appears that the Lord told the Apostles unambiguously that the bread is bread, and just represents His Body, only if that meaning was the obvious one in the context.

Now, after their whole exceptional experience alongside Jesus, after getting to know that He is the Son of the Living God, after what they had listened to according to John 6, what would be obvious in any other situation could not be so for the Twelve in the Upper Room.

Since we’re not in the Upper Room with Jesus, having lived alongside Him, for us it is “obvious” that a bread is bread.
But for the witness of the Apostles.

It was noted recently by a forumist that Beit Lehem means “House of Bread”. So the Gospels tell us Jesus - the Logos made flesh - was born, according to prophecy, in the house of bread, being shown there in a manger. If we read that together with:

“51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” John 6

is that a dismissible coincidence or an amazing clue ?

 

[Jennifer123]

To the OP -

I’m curious as to why you wouldn’t trust the writings of the ECF, many of whom were taught by the Apostles themselves? Surely their testimony would carry weight, having been taught, conversant, and worshipped with those who knew Christ here on Earth in His bodily form. Even scripture tells us that not all of the things that Christ did are written in the scriptures, combine that with St. Paul’s admonition to hold tight to those things taught by word OR deed, and surely it is reasonable to suggest that some teachings would be left to oral tradition. After all, the Church universal existed before the Bible.

 

[toaslan]

Even if it’s a symbolic representation, it still holds great significance…Profaning the symbol wasn’t just profaning a symbol – it was an outright rejection of God’s explicit command to his people. …I can understand why Paul would have a very severe reaction to misuse thereof.

Granted, profaning a sacred symbol is bad–in fact people have been martyred for refusing to desecrate a symbol, the crucifix.

So why doesn’t it read, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning a symbol of the body and blood of the Lord”? That would be bad enough.

But to mean merely a symbol though referencing the thing itself, “body and blood of the Lord,” seems careless. After all, His body and blood are the most sacred things ever on earth, period. Was Paul being guilty of overstating the case so as to manipulate obedience in Christians–did he tend toward exaggeration?

On this subject of all subjects, the flesh of Christ, I think we can safely expect the Holy Spirit in Paul to be very careful about chosing his words, don’t you?

 

[CentralFLJames]

To the OP -

I’m curious as to why you wouldn’t trust the writings of the ECF, many of whom were taught by the Apostles themselves? Surely their testimony would carry weight, having been taught, conversant, and worshipped with those who knew Christ here on Earth in His bodily form. Even scripture tells us that not all of the things that Christ did are written in the scriptures, combine that with St. Paul’s admonition to hold tight to those things taught by word OR deed, and surely it is reasonable to suggest that some teachings would be left to oral tradition. After all, the Church universal existed before the Bible.

The answer is abundantly clear. This is a typical Protestant tactic of trying to hijack scripture by opening it up for private interpretation; as if somone can divorce the word of God (Jesus) from His Bride (The Church). Such will always try to remove tradition captured in abundant writings of the early church fathers and somehow dismiss it as too distant from Christ and too tainted to be considered as authentic. Yet the same will then irrationally use the arguments or rhetorical patterns of Luther and other Protestant heretics who are 1500 years distant from Christ as a closer and preferred truth! It’s fundamentally “fundamental obstinacy” and spiritual suicide.

The entire scenario presented in this thread is not centered on a motive for learning the truth but rather to attack the tenants of Catholicism and to make it appear that one can arrive at spiritual truth through reason alone . We also know from scripture that reason alone is not sufficient. The OP attempts ineffectively to sterilize and sanitize “the arena” of ideas in the only way that he can argue his point to a draw and garner an impression of authority on himself. If one peels away the faux academic rhetoric there is really nothing more than hubris and insincerity at work here. Anyone who brings up the truth outside the arena he wants to play in is simply “dismissed” as not worthy of consideration. The OP knows that one CAN NOT rationally ignore tradition while asking only for scriptural references since as you point out oral teaching and traditions are explicitly referenced in scripture!. They are intimately related just as God is intimately related to humanity through His 2nd Person (Jesus). So the OP starts from an irrational basis and is free to argue in circles to promote his own agenda - whatever it really is.

The scriptures are full of references telling the reader to hold true to Christ’s words as well as the disciples traditions (true expressions of genuine faith since how one lives is what one truly believes - tradition is therefor integral with Christian faith ). One can not use scripture in a vacuum of self interpretation anymore so than one can ignore the truth simply because they want to define their own private criteria of its genesis.

James

 

[maryj]

Second, let’s look at what it’s a continuation of. In Egypt, the Israelites were enslaved. God promised to save them, and demonstrated his might by slaying all the first-born children among the Egyptians. Whom did he spare? Those who had slain a lamb and done with it according to his instructions (spreading the blood accordingly, etc).

God instructed them to remember this by holding the passover meal every year. This wasn’t just some kind of a party. This was serious stuff – commemorating a miracle in accordance with God’s instructions. Can you imagine the offense if someone abused that commemoration? I can only imagine that the reaction would be rather extreme.

Oh but Pc ,
they had to EAT THE LAMB. Not a symbol of the lamb, THE lamb. Not a burger, not some fish, but the lamb. And your right this was not just some kind of party, it was serious stuff. As is the Holy Eucharist, it is the LAMB of God. How is it that God would expect of the Jews to eat the Lamb that had been sacrified, and for us to only eat the “symbol” of the Lamb of God that was sacrificed?
Great thread by the way. God bless.

 

[toaslan]

The entire scenario presented in this thread is not centered on a motive for learning the truth but rather to attack the tenants of Catholicism and to make it appear that one can arrive at spiritual truth through reason alone .

James! Friend! The OP opened this thread with a particular focus–he was asked on another thread (“what is the substance which changes in transubstantiation?”) to open a new thread on John6 as the discussion on substance wasn’t quite compatible with the discussion of whether transubstantiation is biblical.

He very kindly did so. He has a right to restrict the focus of the thread to just the bible, doesn’t he? After all, it is not as though Catholics are unable to defend transubstantiation from the bible, is it? In fact, in this thread you are seeing lively defense from many angles just from scripture of this most scriptural of all doctrines.

Catholics know this doctrine is also eminently defensible by checking it against the practice and writings of the early church. It just happens that that is not what this particular thread is about, OK?

Maybe you’d like to open your own thread focusing on that?

Respectfully submitted…

 

[CentralFLJames]

James! Friend! The OP opened this thread with a particular focus–he was asked on another thread (“what is the substance which changes in transubstantiation?”) to open a new thread on John6 as the discussion on substance wasn’t quite compatible with the discussion of whether transubstantiation is biblical.

He very kindly did so. He has a right to restrict the focus of the thread to just the bible, doesn’t he? After all, it is not as though Catholics are unable to defend transubstantiation from the bible, is it? In fact, in this thread you are seeing lively defense from many angles just from scripture of this most scriptural of all doctrines.

Catholics know this doctrine is also eminently defensible by checking it against the practice and writings of the early church. It just happens that that is not what this particular thread is about, OK?

Maybe you’d like to open your own thread focusing on that?

Respectfully submitted…

OK Sorry - I apologize to the OP. I spend so much time in other forums in defense of attacks on Catholic beliefs that I see the same circular patterns developing and know they always end up wasting a lot of time and never result in changing core beliefs.

Again - I apologize to the OP.

There is some merit in letting others see new angles coming out in this thread that may enhance their own held beliefs and understanding. Actually its quite refreshing to see how many fellow Catholics make all the proper connections to Old Testament imagery of the Pascal Lamb and the mechanisms of manifesting new covenants by blood sacrifice, and the breaking of bread (logos made flesh and manna from heaven) on the cross (the fruit of the Tree of Life). Bravo - some of you people really “get it” at the deepest levels!

James

 

[Jordan_Francis]

Christ’s flesh is like bread in that it sustains us. Bread sustains us physically but Christ’s physical flesh sustains us spiritually. This is the metaphor of Christ being the “bread of life”. When Christ says “we must eat his flesh” he is saying that we must “eat the bread that symbolizes him”.

Yet this is precisely why I am adamant that our **arguments proceed directly from the text ** of John Chapter 6. Everyone would agree that Christ’s flesh sustains us spirituality and that is implicit in John’s writings as a whole. Yet to say that the Gospel of John is comparing Jesus to bread and specifically the manna because it sustains us in a generic sense is not a distinction that John makes. This is an imposition on the text, a distortion of it really. This is not why Jesus is presented as the Bread of Life in this chapter.

{continued}

 

[Jordan_Francis]

Let us turn to the text:

In examining John chapter 6 directly we can consider why Jesus is symbolized by bread and exactly what the connection between Christ and bread are that make the symbol viable according to the actual text itself, not our own poetic speculation:

Now you will notice in the text that it is the actual disciples who bring up the manna of the Old Testament: They ask Jesus what his miraculous sign will be and they remind him that “Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert. It is written, he gave them bread from heaven to eat”. (6:31)

From this portion of the text there is no “spiritualization” of the term eat. The miracle is that God provided physical sustenance for the People of Israel in a time of need. Jesus answers the question of the miracle by answering that he is the true bread from heaven given by his Father. Clearly Christ is using the bread from heaven as a symbol of himself, playing off the disciples mention of the manna.

The Jews grumble at the fact that he has called himself the “bread from heaven”, and Jesus says various things relating to the Father. He finishes, however, by again broaching the manna: “He who believes has ever lasting life. I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died” (6:49)

He continues* "But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may **eat *and not die" I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Now it should be sufficiently clear to all that **Jesus is like bread, not primarily in terms of sustenance, but primarily in terms of consumption. ** Sustenance follows as a natural consequence of eating, but it is not the primary point being made in this chapter. The word “eat” or “ate” has already appeared 5 times in connection with bread or flesh. Less this be unclear, the chapter continues and conclusively links the symbol of bread with the actual act of consumption:

“unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you”

“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life”

“For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink”

“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me”

And Christ finishes with again refering to the manna, which was literally eaten:

“Your forefathers ate manna in the desert and died”

The word eat or ate has now appeared **9 times **in the chapter in connection with flesh or bread. This is the reference point of the symbol. For this reason to say:

The bread of Heaven, Jesus Christ, is provided not to sustain us physically, but Spiritually.

Is clearly a imposition on the text. It is saying something that is not there. Let this be clear I am not saying that Christ’s flesh does not sustain us spiritually, but that is only consequential to the point being made, which is that we have spiritual access to Christ through the actual consupmtion of his flesh. The connection between bread and flesh is consumption, unless you do not understand the basic function of symbols, which is to use an image or thing to point us to a reality. A symbol works because there is something between the image and the reality that are literally true of both. If I say “the clouds are marshmallows” it is literally true of both clouds and marshmallows that they are white, light and fluffy. What does John highlight that is literally true of both Christ’s flesh and bread? It is clear that this is consumption.

Less we fail to grasp the literal quality of Christ’s flesh as food, Jesus continues "My flesh is real food". And over-emphasizes the consumption of his flesh in verses 53-59. When Jesus says in these verses that “whoever eats my flesh has eternal life” the Greek verb used for eat is equivalent to **“gnaw or chew” **. Not the language of metaphor.

It is because these statements seem so ludicrous literally that many Christians force a spiritualization onto the text and ignore the sharp tone of the passages and the emphasis on eating. Nowhere in this text is eating given to spiritualization and metaphor. Nowhere is Christ’s flesh given to metaphor. It is only bread or manna, which is given as a symbol of Christ

 

[PC_Master]

My apologies again – I won’t be able to respond to all of the posts. I just don’t have the time – if this weren’t so important to me, I wouldn’t be doing even this much. I just want to make it clear that I’m not trying to ignore anyone, but rather trying to focus on those points which I think will be most beneficial to my understanding of the subject.

1. since in different languages “is” can indeed sometimes mean “represents”, you’re right in keeping the possibility of a symbolic interpretation linguistically open, a priori.

You know you’re the first person you really has even addressed that point. That I find very disappointing (that noone else would respond to it).

Anywho, moving on…

If you want to mean simply “is”, and not “represents”, with your “is”, you normally use …“is”.
If you mean “represents” and use “is”, this appears to imply, as in the fine example of our highway, an obvious contextual or situational understanding.
Therefore, it appears that the Lord told the Apostles unambiguously that the bread is bread, and just represents His Body, only if that meaning was the obvious one in the context.

Okay. Let’s see what constitutes a situational understanding.

In the map instance, I’m drawing a map. Clearly, that which I’m drawing on is a piece of paper, and it is readily observable that it is not in fact the highway, but is actually a road.

Frankly, I’m not sure how else one could qualify a situational understanding except by empiricism. Clearly, the last supper involved what was very obviously bread. They knew the food (edited) had symbolism in their traditions, and here Jesus was saying that this now represented a new covenant in his own body and blood. I don’t think this would have been at all difficult to accept.

It was noted recently by a forumist that Beit Lehem means “House of Bread”. So the Gospels tell us Jesus - the Logos made flesh - was born, according to prophecy, in the house of bread, being shown there in a manger. If we read that together with:

“51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”

John 6

is that a dismissible coincidence or an amazing clue ?Indeed, that is interesting. I’ll have to look into that more carefully before accepting or rejecting that idea.

I’m curious as to why you wouldn’t trust the writings of the ECF, many of whom were taught by the Apostles themselves? Surely their testimony would carry weight, having been taught, conversant, and worshipped with those who knew Christ here on Earth in His bodily form. Even scripture tells us that not all of the things that Christ did are written in the scriptures, combine that with St. Paul’s admonition to hold tight to those things taught by word OR deed, and surely it is reasonable to suggest that some teachings would be left to oral tradition. After all, the Church universal existed before the Bible.

Simply put, that you interpret the ECFs in one way doesn’t mean that I will interpret them in the same way. You also, no doubt, interpret scripture to support transubstantiation, and so me saying it does not would probably provoke the question – how can I reject what scripture itself says?

The problem is that there’s more than one interpretation of many of these passages, and so I’m taking effort to try to determine which of these is true.

Oh but Pc ,
they had to EAT THE LAMB. Not a symbol of the lamb, THE lamb. Not a burger, not some fish, but the lamb. And your right this was not just some kind of party, it was serious stuff.

Indeed – the first time they ate the lamb in obedience to God’s commands. Subsequently, they did the same, as a symbol, not of the lamb they ate in Egypt, but of the salvation provided by God. That miraculous event happened once. The lambs eaten thereafter were ordinary lambs. They were not mystically made the same as the ones in Egypt. They were a symbol to help the people remember the past. Likewise, the last supper instituted a new meaning for this passover feast, so that we would remember the new covenant forged in Christ’s blood.

While I admit your argument has merit, it’s simply not enough to be convincing; certainly not in light of the other evidence. It’s a viable explanation of that particular bit of theology…but it’s not the only viable explanation.

 

[Odell]

Indeed – the first time they ate the lamb in obedience to God’s commands. Subsequently, they did the same, as a symbol, not of the lamb they ate in Egypt, but of the salvation provided by God. That miraculous event happened once. The lambs eaten thereafter were ordinary lambs. They were not mystically made the same as the ones in Egypt. They were a symbol to help the people remember the past. Likewise, the last supper instituted a new meaning for this passover feast, so that we would remember the new covenant forged in Christ’s blood.
.

I know im butting in but I would like to add that the Jews actually believed that they where partaking in the same and original passover

When the Jews celebrated the Passover, they celebrate that very sacrifice that happened when God passed over their houses. Every year the Passover was believed to be part of the original Passover sacrifice.

(Exodus 12:26-27) “When your children ask you ‘what does this rite of yours mean’? You shall reply, ‘this IS the **Passover sacrifice **of the Lord who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt; when he struck down the Egyptians and he spared our houses’.” .

And what is the new Passover? In 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 Jesus is called the paschal Lamb who has been sacrificed and it tells us to keep the feast with unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. Our Passover Lamb is the unleavened bread and our festival is the Mass. This is what the early Christians believed this is how they worshiped.

(Hebrews 12:22-24) “No, YOU have approached **Mount Zion **and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and countless angels in FESTAL gathering, and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, and God the judge of all, and the spirits just made perfect, and Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood that speaks more eloquently than that of Abel.”

This is a perfect explanation for what is taking place at the Mass. We are having the exact same feast that is taking place in heaven with the assembly of the firstborns enrolled in heaven. We are accessing in time something that is timeless.

And this is exactly what John was explaining in Revelation 14:1. “Then I looked and there was the Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Fathers name written on their foreheads.” John sees the same things that the author of Hebrews was explaining about the heavenly Mass we participate in.

And St. Athanasius wrote this in the Fourth century. Showing us this is the real deal this is what we have always believed. “My beloved brethren, it is no **temporal feast **that we come to, but an eternal, heavenly feast. We do not display it in shadows; we approach it in reality.”

hope this helps

PS if you would like a really good short study on this try this link I love it. salvationhistory.com/online/beginner/begcourse2_home.cfm

 

[Jerry-Jet]

PC Master: If Bill Clinton who is also Protestant felt the need to make a subset of this thread about what the definition of “Is” is regarding Jesus saying “This IS my body and this IS my blood” would you participate in it to be absolutely sure that you know what the definition of “Is” is so you could enlighten us more in this thread?

What do you think the definition of “Is” is?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Jesus used the “bread” and “wheat” imagery in many of his teachings. It is clear that everything He did was leading up to the crucifixion and the breaking of his body (bread) as the perfect and only sacrifice acceptable to God and the formal start of the New Covenant of friendship and goodwill between God and Man sealed with Divine Blood.

John 12:24-25
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. “He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal.

Mathew 6:9-15
“Pray, then, in this way:
‘Our Father who is in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
‘Your kingdom come.
Your will be done,
On earth as it is in heaven.
‘Give us this day our daily bread.
‘And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
‘And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. [For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.’]
“For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. “But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

James

 

[maryj]

.

Indeed – the first time they ate the lamb in obedience to God’s commands. Subsequently, they did the same, as a symbol, not of the lamb they ate in Egypt, but of the salvation provided by God. That miraculous event happened once. The lambs eaten thereafter were ordinary lambs. They were not mystically made the same as the ones in Egypt. They were a symbol to help the people remember the past. Likewise, the last supper instituted a new meaning for this passover feast, so that we would remember the new covenant forged in Christ’s blood.

While I admit your argument has merit, it’s simply not enough to be convincing; certainly not in light of the other evidence. It’s a viable explanation of that particular bit of theology…but it’s not the only viable explanation.

Oh no, they were not just ordinary lambs. They were unblemished lambs, with no broken bones. Sometime the Israelites had to travel long distances to get to Jerusalem for the celebration of Passover. They could not bring the lambs with them for sacrifice since they would end up being “blemished” from their travels. Merchants would set up pens outside of the “sheepgate” to sell unblemished lambs to the Jews entering jerusalem. Sheepgate??? where would we have heard that before?? I am hopeful that you will see the merit in this explanation, once again wonderful thread. Glad to see everyone keeping their cool. God Bless you in your studies.

 

[maryj]

JReduction has some great points in post #23. Anyone care to comment?

 

[Pax]

I liked that post and I thought the closing remark was really a great way to conclude it.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Oh no, they were not just ordinary lambs. They were unblemished lambs, with no broken bones. Sometime the Israelites had to travel long distances to get to Jerusalem for the celebration of Passover. They could not bring the lambs with them for sacrifice since they would end up being “blemished” from their travels. Merchants would set up pens outside of the “sheepgate” to sell unblemished lambs to the Jews entering jerusalem. Sheepgate??? where would we have heard that before?? I am hopeful that you will see the merit in this explanation, once again wonderful thread. Glad to see everyone keeping their cool. God Bless you in your studies.

On the matter of breaking of bones:
The consistency in the scriptures all through time is utterly profound is it not?

John 19:32-37
So the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first man and of the other who was crucified with Him; 33 but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. 35 And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe. 36 For these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, “NOT A BONE OF HIM SHALL BE BROKEN.” 37 And again another Scripture says, “THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED.”

James

 

[Jennifer123]

Simply put, that you interpret the ECFs in one way doesn’t mean that I will interpret them in the same way. You also, no doubt, interpret scripture to support transubstantiation, and so me saying it does not would probably provoke the question – how can I reject what scripture itself says?

The problem is that there’s more than one interpretation of many of these passages, and so I’m taking effort to try to determine which of these is true.

But my point was that an interpretation of John 6 existed before John 6 was canonized in scripture, so why isn’t that important, considering those making the interpretation of John 6 conversed directly with those who discussed this matter with Christ Himself?
But I do understand I guess what you are trying to discuss and thank those who are making the correlation between the OT and the NT archtypes. Jesus fulfilled the OT, not abolished it.