A
anrmenchaca47
Guest
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.
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
Hmm… help me out, here: why would Paul and Jesus be insufficient, here? one would think that their witness would be more than enough!
A
anrmenchaca47
Guest
Oh its not for me…its for those whom I’m debating. I guess two is not enough so they want proof…EVEN when I use example of writings of early church fathers like St. Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Ireaneaus, and so on…But I have just started the debate so I just want to make sure I am well informed before I make a fool of myself.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Hmm… have you asked them what they’d accept as sufficient evidence?
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Don’t let yourself get put on the defensive in these internet debates. If someone can get you to scramble around looking for sources, that’s what they’ll do. And it likely won’t make a difference what you come back with because they’ll just explain it away.
If Jesus and Paul – corroborated by the witness of the early Church Fathers who were taught by those who were taught by the Apostles – isn’t enough for them, I doubt anything will be.
You might try asking them for evidence that any Apostle or Church Father explicitly taught that the Eucharist was just a symbol.
If Jesus and Paul – corroborated by the witness of the early Church Fathers who were taught by those who were taught by the Apostles – isn’t enough for them, I doubt anything will be.
You might try asking them for evidence that any Apostle or Church Father explicitly taught that the Eucharist was just a symbol.
A
anrmenchaca47
Guest
You know what…? That hadn’t occured to me to ask them… I will definitely ask them.
A
anrmenchaca47
Guest
Well, in regards to searching for info…the only thing I provided was 1 corinthian 10:16 as proof that the host transubstantiates into the flesh of Christ along with the wine changing into blood.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Ask them why they believe that their onw soul is in their own body–yet don’t believe Jesus when He says this IS My body.
Do they believe in themselves more than Jesus?
I tell you this–those same people if they had lived 2,00 years ago wouldn’t believe in the raising of Lazarus or EVEN the Resurrection of Our Lord and Savior Jesus!
Either you have faith or you don’t.
The non believers are anti-Christ if they do KNOW of the truth of the catholic teaching on the Eucharist.
Now whether they’re culpably ignorant or not–I don’t know–only Jesus will judge that–but be not deceived–that judgement WILL happen!
Do they believe in themselves more than Jesus?
I tell you this–those same people if they had lived 2,00 years ago wouldn’t believe in the raising of Lazarus or EVEN the Resurrection of Our Lord and Savior Jesus!
Either you have faith or you don’t.
The non believers are anti-Christ if they do KNOW of the truth of the catholic teaching on the Eucharist.
Now whether they’re culpably ignorant or not–I don’t know–only Jesus will judge that–but be not deceived–that judgement WILL happen!
C
CGDouglas
Guest
Place a little bit of pressure on them:
Those who have mentioned about the Eucharist are within a very reasonable timeframe.
God Bless,
Christopher.
- The Didache (circa A.D. 50-100).
- St. Ignatius (A.D. 50-117) (Smyrnæans 7; Ephesians 20; Philadelphians 4).
- St. Justin ( A.D. 100-165) (First Apology 66).
- St. Irenaeus (between early 2nd to late 2nd/early 3rd century) (Against Heresies IV.17.5, IV.18.4 and V.2.2).
- Tertullian (b. A.D. 160) (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 8; On Pudicity 9; On Prayer 19; On Baptism 16).
- St. Cyprian (baptised c. A.D. 246.) (Treatise 3.16 and Treatise 4.18),
Those who have mentioned about the Eucharist are within a very reasonable timeframe.
God Bless,
Christopher.
P
promethius
Guest
Granted the teachings of Jesus and the Epistles of Paul make up the VAST majority of the New Testament, what they’re basically saying is “as regards this issue, we want more sources than those books that form the core of the new testament”.
Very well, point them to the Gospel of John… Jesus says “Unless you eat my Body and drink my Blood…” sure, but it was JOHN who chose to write it down as scriptural teaching.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Tell them you’ll meet them halfway. Tell them they have to prove the Trinity, but you’ll only accept the book of Jude and Esther as proof. And as soon as they do it, then you will provide more witness to the change in Body and Blood.
A
anrmenchaca47
Guest
Go figure
You would think that the New Testament would be enough…
Yep…already did this and even went far to tell the that Christ CAN present himself in another form just like he did when he resurrected and Cleophas and an unamed disciple recognized him ONLY during the breaking of bread…Before that he was unrecognizeable.
A
anrmenchaca47
Guest
Thanks for the link. Will definitely check it out
J
jochoa
Guest
To spiritually recognize the bread as the body, please consider the following concepts, and please be gentle in your critiques for it is my first time to write on this subject:
First consider the image of Jesus in the beginning of manhood:
Based on: “He came down from Heaven and became man,” and “And God created man to his own image.”
It can be reasoned that Jesus came down as a single cell. Because this is what we look like, both male and female, when we are first created.
Second consider the image of Jesus Christ in the beginning before being the begotten Son:
Since the Son is consubstantial with the Father, the Father must have the exact same body. Which in consideration of cell division, when the first cell divides, it makes an exact duplicate.
Therefore Jesus Christ, prior to creation existed as a single cell. Now how the single cell came into existence, I am unsure, however, I know that, “there was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Next recognize that single cell has the image of a circle, just as the Host of the Eucharist.
To fully embrace the deep humility and appreciation we should feel when participating in the Eucharist as Jesus says, “This is my Body which will be given up for you.” One perspective is to recognize that when Jesus became the begotten son, He gave up the state of all-power and knowledge for each one of us sinners, and He embraced an unjust, humiliating and painful crucifixion to show us the deep levels of patience and kindness True Love has.
Thoughts?
Thanks for the excellent question! It is great to ponder the Awesomeness of Our God!
G
Gorgias
Guest
Hmm… except that it’s not a matter of faith that Jesus was conceived as the union of sperm and egg – in fact, the Holy Spirit didn’t impregnate Mary; rather, the God overshadowed Mary and Jesus was conceived. We might think that one of Mary’s eggs spontaneously became a single-cell zygote, but we don’t really know the science of “how” the Incarnation happened…
OK… you really want to be careful with this one.
Neither the Father nor the Logos has a “body”. So, the Son, prior to his Incarnation, never “existed as a single cell”.
If you’re thinking in terms of embodiedness, then you’re only thinking of the human body of Jesus, not the substance of the Trinity.
F
fred_conty
Guest
I would suggest it be kept simple. That the word transubstantiation be explained as a change from bread into his body.
Then explain the miracle at Cana where he changed the water into wine. If they have a problem with this, then they have a bigger problem. If they accept this, then say it is the same thing, changing one thing into another.
Just a thought.
G
Gorgias
Guest
fred,
don’t you think that this might lead to the discussion of the difference between water-which-ends-up-looking-like-wine and the bread-which-DOESNT-end-up-looking-like-body?
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?
F
fred_conty
Guest
From my perspective, it is about planting an idea(seed) for them to think about later.
Secondly, many times it is misunderstandings (mess understandings) about the catholic
beliefs which interfers with acceptance. Once those are cleared then other articles
are understandable. So a slow, small, start is good. The little point is, Jesus can
change one thing into another, that much clears the way. Just a little point but an
important one on the way to accepting the bigger mystery. Just pepper that idea in a nice
way.
The bible didn’t say it did change color. But that isn’t important. Water became wine.
Just a thought.
Secondly, many times it is misunderstandings (mess understandings) about the catholic
beliefs which interfers with acceptance. Once those are cleared then other articles
are understandable. So a slow, small, start is good. The little point is, Jesus can
change one thing into another, that much clears the way. Just a little point but an
important one on the way to accepting the bigger mystery. Just pepper that idea in a nice
way.
The bible didn’t say it did change color. But that isn’t important. Water became wine.
Just a thought.
J
jochoa
Guest
Please note, that my understanding of the conceptualization I present, is not claiming that Jesus did needed sperm to begin further growth…and I by no means intend to explain the science behind how God accomplishes His Word and Creation. In regards to a conceptualization of Incarnation, if you are interested, I have a relatively simple concept in development, if you are interested in hearing it.
Please note that as I present these conceptualizations, I will ensure that I can justify them as working within the Doctrine of Faith, and therefore, I have two methods in which I justify: "Neither the Father nor the Logos has a “body.” Also, please be gentle in your critiques for this is the first time for me to write on this subject.
- We know Jesus Christ is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And Jesus says, “This is my body…” Therefore, God has a body. However, he also states, “…which will be given up for you.” Since his body was/is given up, as the Father, He no longer has a body.
or…(the reasoning/justification I personally prefer) - “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.”
If one interprets the Word as unchanging forces, and God as the single source of creation, then John 1:1 is the wisdom of anything that comes into existence. What is interesting is that God seems to be proposing a loop from John 1:2, but in the case of the existence/creation of the Universe, since there is only one God, this can only happen twice. The first time it happens is when from “nothing” and the Word alone a single entity/source of all creation comes into existence. Then that single source is responsible for all future creation, thereby making the single source fully God as in the beginning. Therefore, in the beginning of the beginning, God nor the Word had a body. And it is this state of being that Jesus Christ selflessly gave up for us.
S
Solo1959
Guest
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!
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!
- Status