HELP on Transubstantiation

[rjcash]

I have been reading this thread and appreciate the really good responses that have been posted. There is Old Testament support for transubstantiation as well.

Ezekiel 2:6-3:4

As for you, son of man, obey me when I speak to you: be not rebellious like this house of rebellion, but open your mouth and eat what I shall give you. It was then I saw a hand stretched out to me, in which was a written scroll which he unrolled before me. It was covered with writing front and back, and written on it was: Lamentation and wailing and woe! He said to me: Son of man, eat what is before you; eat this scroll, then go, speak to the house of Israel. So I opened my mouth and he gave me the scroll to eat. Son of man, he then said to me, feed your belly and fill your stomach with this scroll I am giving you. I ate it, and it was as sweet as honey in my mouth.

If we believe as the Gospel of John teaches that the Word was with God and the Word was God, and there is Old Testament evidence of eating the word… Trasnsubstantiation’s crystal clear!

Except that is not what Trasnsubstantiation is!

 

[EricFilmer]

I am debating two guys at once regarding transubstantiation. What Apostle(s),besides Paul and Jesus himself, mention that the bread and wine change into the body and blood. Help me out here guys thanks.

I’m wondering whether the discussion is on “transubstantiation”, per se, or on “real presence”? that is, do they want to talk about the real presence, or about how the real presence is understood?

I agree with Gorgias that this probably needs to be clarified. For example, Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists accept the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, but reject the doctrine of transubstantiation as a definition of how the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Other Protestants, however, would argue against the Real Presence, saying that the Eucharist is only a symbolic representation of Christ. An apologetic defense of transubstantiation would have to be nuanced differently, depending on which stance the other person is taking. For example, a Lutheran, Anglican or Methodist would have no problem with accepting, say, John 6 as evidence for the doctrine of the Real Presence, but not as evidence for the doctrine of transubstantiation. Other Protestants would say that John 6 does not properly support either doctrine.