Help w/ transubstanciation

[evafrisch]

Where can I find srciptural proof or transubstanciation?

 

[davidv]

Where can I find srciptural proof or transubstanciation?

John Chapter 6

 

[NotWorthy]

Look at another facet of John chapter 6:
*** Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains (also translated as “abides”) in me and I in him.***

You will not see that term “abides” or “remains” until John chapter 15, which is the Last Supper discourse. Now that the Apostles have eaten His Body and drank His Blood, Jesus tells them:
Remain in me, as I remain in you…

Jesus is in the bread and the wine, and when we receive communion, Jesus abides in our souls in a most intimate way!!!

 

[pippin]

I Corinthians 11:23-29. Note especially verse 27: “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy maner shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.” If it’s not really the body and blood of our Lord how can you be guilty of “the body and blood of our Lord”?

 

[NotWorthy]

Verse 29 is just as forceful:
*** For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body**, eats and drinks judgment on himself.*

 

[Todd_Easton]

transubstantiation: change of one substance into another.

Jesus’ first public miracle at the wedding feast at Cana, when he changed water into wine, was a transubstantiation. (John 2:1-11)

 

[NotWorthy]

transubstantiation: change of one substance into another.

Jesus’ first public miracle at the wedding feast at Cana, when he changed water into wine, was a transubstantiation. (John 2:1-11)

Not quite, because the “accidents” changed as well. You could look at the water and see wine.

In Transubstantiation, the “accidents” remain the same, so the bread still looks like bread and tastes like bread.

P.S. I certainly hope I’m using the term “accidents” correctly!!!

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi
There are some Christians who do not believe this literally to have happened.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar
change water into wine
I however respect your religion, you are free to believe anything you like with reasoning, rationality and being research oriented, no compulsion.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of Muhammad’sIslam and PromisedMessiahImamMahdi’sIslam is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking only peaceful.

 

[NoelFitz]

I May be a bit cheeky, as I am new here. However I do think this query is not appropriate for this forum.

Q: Where can I find srciptural proof or transubstanciation?
A: *nowhere.
*
There is no proof of Transubstanciation = transubstantiation
in scripture. In fact there is no proof of it anywhere. If one believes in transubstantiation, the belief is based on faith.

Ardinal Arinze has said
This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation" (Council of Trent, DS 1642; also CCC, 1376). adoremus.org/1203Arinze.html

I write as an ordinary Catholic, who is a chemist. Change nowadays is discussed in terms of atoms remaining the same, but altering how they are connected. Valence bond theory and molecular orbital theories rationalize these changes. In earlier time in changes it was considered that form changes, but the matter remains the same. This theory, the hylomorphic theory, was used to rationalize the change of the bread and wine into Christ.

The human writers of the NT never heard of transubstantiation. They were not philosophers. The Church developed its interest in philosophy and speculative theology after Justin Martyr (c. 160 CE), whose feast we celebrated a few days ago.

 

[joecap]

michaeljournal.org/eucharist3.htm

Even better than Scriptural proof, this is Physical proof.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Not quite, because the “accidents” changed as well. You could look at the water and see wine.

In Transubstantiation, the “accidents” remain the same, so the bread still looks like bread and tastes like bread.

P.S. I certainly hope I’m using the term “accidents” correctly!!!

Since the OP did not define which transubstantiation she had in mind, my response was geared to the more general definition of transubstantiation, defined by the dictionary as “change of one substance into an other.” Of course, the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus at the Last Supper (Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22) and at subsequent celebrations of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 10 and 11) is clearly the most important transubstantiation mentioned in the Bible.

The transubstantiation of water into wine by Jesus at the wedding at Cana (John 2) prefigured his later transubstantiation of bread and wine into his own body and blood at his Last Supper.

Another example of transubstantiation in the Bible was when Moses’ staff changed into a snake. (Exodus 7:8-13)

These last mentioned examples of transubstantiation establish a biblical precedent for the transubstantiation that was to take place at the Last Supper.

 

[NotWorthy]

Since the OP did not define which transubstantiation she had in mind, my response was geared to the more general definition of transubstantiation, defined by the dictionary as “change of one substance into an other.” Of course, the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus at the Last Supper (Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22) and at subsequent celebrations of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 10 and 11) is clearly the most important transubstantiation mentioned in the Bible.

The transubstantiation of water into wine by Jesus at the wedding at Cana (John 2) prefigured his later transubstantiation of bread and wine into his own body and blood at his Last Supper.

Another example of transubstantiation in the Bible was when Moses’ staff changed into a snake. (Exodus 7:8-13)

These last mentioned examples of transubstantiation establish a biblical precedent for the transubstantiation that was to take place at the Last Supper.

Thanks for that. I learned something! My day is complete!!!

 

[thistle]

John 6:48-61

48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
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."
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 **Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. **
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?

 

[savedsinner]

You can’t find it in the bible, because the bible prohibits the drinking of blood. And God would not ask you to sin.

 

[NotWorthy]

You can’t find it in the bible, because the bible prohibits the drinking of blood. And God would not ask you to sin.

Browse through John Chapter 6, one more time, if you will.

 

[savedsinner]

Browse through John Chapter 6, one more time, if you will.

Jesus is speaking symbolically here, and the only people that believed him to be speaking literally are the ones that left him, for they knew that God prohibits the drinking of blood.
If Jesus had been speaking literally here, he would have explained it to his followers just like he does in many other places in scripture. The Church fathers also believed the way I do, because they all talk about the “spiritual” real presence of the bread and wine. They did not believe that it really was his blood and body in a real sense but in a spiritual sense, just like scripture tells us: where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst.

 

[Church_Militant]

Jesus is speaking symbolically here, and the only people that believed him to be speaking literally are the ones that left him, for they knew that God prohibits the drinking of blood.
If Jesus had been speaking literally here, he would have explained it to his followers just like he does in many other places in scripture. The Church fathers also believed the way I do, because they all talk about the “spiritual” real presence of the bread and wine. They did not believe that it really was his blood and body in a real sense but in a spiritual sense, just like scripture tells us.

Really? Show me where He even implies symbolism? You can’t because it’s not there, though you wish it was.:coffeeread:

 

[NotWorthy]

Jesus is speaking symbolically here, and the only people that believed him to be speaking literally are the ones that left him, for they knew that God prohibits the drinking of blood.

Check again. The Apostles knew he was speaking literally, but they still had no clue. “Master, to whom shall we turn, for you have the words of everlasting life”. Just think, though, one year later. Those Apostles had to hear his words, “This is My Body… and This is My Blood,* the blood of the New Covenant*” and they had to think, “Ahhhhhhh…, so that’s what he meant!!!”

If Jesus had been speaking literally here, he would have explained it to his followers just like he does in many other places in scripture.

No, He explains himself when He is talking in Parables, my friend. This was definately not a parable.

The Church fathers also believed the way I do, because they all talk about the “spiritual” real presence of the bread and wine. They did not believe that it really was his blood and body in a real sense but in a spiritual sense, just like scripture tells us.

You’re so funny. So Jesus is telling us to “Symbolically Sin?” That’s a hoot!

Every generation since the Apostles has taught that Jesus truly exists in the Eucharist. Every Generation! Why? Because “My Flesh is Food indeed”.

 

[savedsinner]

John 6:63
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
This means symbolic, plain and simple.
My pastor says that it is symbolic. And my pastor learned from someone who held a doctorate when he went to seminary, so he should know what he is talking about.

 

[savedsinner]

Check again. The Apostles knew he was speaking literally, but they still had no clue. “Master, to whom shall we turn, for you have the words of everlasting life”. Just think, though, one year later. Those Apostles had to hear his words, “This is My Body… and This is My Blood,* the blood of the New Covenant*” and they had to think, “Ahhhhhhh…, so that’s what he meant!!!”
No, He explains himself when He is talking in Parables, my friend. This was definately not a parable.

You’re so funny. So Jesus is telling us to “Symbolically Sin?” That’s a hoot!

Every generation since the Apostles has taught that Jesus truly exists in the Eucharist. Every Generation! Why? Because “My Flesh is Food indeed”.

I listened to Chuck Swindoll on the radio and he said that Jesus said “This represents” my body and blood, and then they ate the crackers and drank the Juice.
I think Mr. Swindoll has a lot more training that you do.

Ps you shouldn’t make fun of my comments, because I am born again, and God doesn’t like it when you make fun of his children.