Help w/ transubstanciation

[Church_Militant]

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. I have no problem whatever with the passage that you have cited, but I see that you are forcing an interpretation onto the verse (out of context as well) instead of abiding by what the passage says.

Show me where this tells us that this is symbolic.

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.

So you have an infallible pastor? Not likely. If either of the people who taught you this knew what they were talking about then why do they disagree with St. Paul when he says. “16: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1st Corinthians 10) and then "23: For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
24: and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25: In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26: For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27: Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
28: Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29: For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
30: That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. " (1st Corinthian 11)

and the the writings of the early church, (in fact) a disciple of St. John (y’know, John, who wrote the Gospel, 3 epistles, and the book of Revelation?) named Ignatius of Antioch, who said, "CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes."

St. John had only the degree of intimate relationship that he shared with Our Lord Jesus Christ and he discipled Ignatius.

Who do you figure has it right then?

 

[savedsinner]

27: Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

This is exactly what I am talking about. If you eat or drink thinking that it is really flesh and blood, then you are profaning the body and blood of our Lord, because we are prohibited from drinking blood.

And I have listened to James White, (I think he is the greatest Christian mind in the world right now), and he states that it is symbolic. He even reads Greek and Hebrew, which even St. Augustine didn’t do.

 

[Church_Militant]

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.

So you put your faith in the teachings of these men? In spite of the Biblical evidence that shows that they are wrong “plain and simple”?

Show me a verse in the New Testament where Jesus says “This represents” my body and blood,". I don’t think you can because I have read the Word of God all the way through many times and I happen to know that it’s not there anywhere.

Tell me…what does the New Testament tell us about those who follow after the teachings of men?

“Crackers and juice”? I’m sorry, but this is also Biblically inaccurate. There is nothing at all in any of the passages about the last supper that anywhere even implies that these were the forms used. In fact even Jews would have issues with this statement since they use wine and unleavened bread at Passover, just as they did in Our Lord’s day. And just as we Catholics do today…

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.

I haven’t made fun of you, but I have refuted every one of your teachings of men…:bible1:

 

[BeeSweet]

27: Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

This is exactly what I am talking about. If you eat or drink thinking that it is really flesh and blood, then you are profaning the body and blood of our Lord, because we are prohibited from drinking blood.

And I have listened to James White, (I think he is the greatest Christian mind in the world right now), and he states that it is symbolic. He even reads Greek and Hebrew, which even St. Augustine didn’t do.

You’ve got it backwards. You are unworthy when you eat the bread and drink the blood not believing Christ when he told you in no uncertain terms it is His Body and Blood.

 

[savedsinner]

Excuse me, but I don’t even think many of the early Church fathers went to seminary.
Mr. Swindoll went to Dallas Theological Seminary where the greatest theological minds that ever were attended.

I assumed that I was being laughed at because I saw a smiley face rolling on the ground laughing.

 

[savedsinner]

You’ve got it backwards. You are unworthy when you eat the bread and drink the blood not believing Christ when he told you in no uncertain terms it is His Body and Blood.

Well that is probably what your church has told you, but the Holy Spirit had told me differently, and I am born again.

 

[BeeSweet]

Well that is probably what your church has told you, but the Holy Spirit had told me differently, and I am born again.

The church speaks through the power of the Holy Spirit. You can not be born again. Re read Jesus’ explanation to Nicodemus in John 3.

 

[Johenz]

I think, SavedSinner, that you don’t understand who the “early church fathers” were. See, they wouldn’t have had the opportunity to attend any divinity college because the only seminary in operation in the late first and early second century was in the living room with the Apostles who had walked and talked and learned from our Lord, Jesus Christ. So, you’ll have to over look their lack of a degree.

 

[savedsinner]

The Holy Spirit is God, and God commanded that we do not drink blood. God would not contradict himself.
Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law but fulfill it. How can being in complete contradiction of the law be fulfilling it.

 

[savedsinner]

I think, SavedSinner, that you don’t understand who the “early church fathers” were. See, they wouldn’t have had the opportunity to attend any divinity college because the only seminary in operation in the late first and early second century was in the living room with the Apostles who had walked and talked and learned from our Lord, Jesus Christ. So, you’ll have to over look their lack of a degree.

Well, they should have paid attention then.

 

[Church_Militant]

27: Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

This is exactly what I am talking about. If you eat or drink thinking that it is really flesh and blood, then you are profaning the body and blood of our Lord, because we are prohibited from drinking blood.

Are we now? Well let me ask you this.

Was it forbidden to work on the Sabbath?

Didn’t Our Lord say that it was alright for his disciples to glean grain to eat as they walked through a field on the sabbath? Did He not heal and do all manner of works on the sabbath and encourage the same of His disciples?

The Law didn’t change though… Jesus just showed that it was not being rightly interpreted.

Now…what did He say to the disciples at the last supper?
26: Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."
27: And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;
28: for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26)

See anything there where He even implies symbolism? This is the same Lord who fed 9,000 people on 2 different occasions with almost nothing at all. This is the same Lord who walks on water and raised the dead and all manner of other miracles.

What was it we used to say in non-Catholic churches?
God said it in His word.
I believe it in my heart.
That settles it.
Forever

This is the same Lord that is God in the flesh. If He tells me to eat and drink His body and blood, who do you think I’m going to obey? The Lord Jesus Christ…or some men, who teach something that has only been around a mere 500 years and disagrees with His word and with what the early church was taught by the apostles themselves? It’s a no brainer to me…

What did the apostles say? “…We ought to obey God, rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)

And I have listened to James White, (I think he is the greatest Christian mind in the world right now), and he states that it is symbolic. He even reads Greek and Hebrew, which even St. Augustine didn’t do.

Really? I’ve read some of White’s website and he’s dead wrong. Jehovah’s Witnesses will tell you that they know Greek and Hebrew too and use it support their teachings…would you believe them as well?

He, like your pastor, and you yourself, force interpretations on the Word of God that are not there and this is a prize winning example. There is absolutely nothing in the Word of God that even implies that the Lord’s Supper is symbolic. It’s not there…as you seem fond of saying, “plain and simple”.

 

[savedsinner]

Are we now? Well let me ask you this.

Was it forbidden to work on the Sabbath?

Didn’t Our Lord say that it was alright for his disciples to glean grain to eat as they walked through a field on the sabbath? Did He not heal and do all manner of works on the sabbath and encourage the same of His disciples?

The Law didn’t change though… Jesus just showed that it was not being rightly interpreted

What Jesus was saying is that they did not have to obey that law when he was present here on earth. He said once he left that they would have to obey the law again. Something about when the bridegroom is present the guests don’t fast, but when the bridegroom is gone, then they will fast.

Therefore that exception from the law is self retiring.

 

[BeeSweet]

What Jesus was saying is that they did not have to obey that law when he was present here on earth. He said once he left that they would have to obey the law again. Something about when the bridegroom is present the guests don’t fast, but when the bridegroom is gone, then they will fast.

Therefore that exception from the law is self retiring.

No, what Jesus was saying is that the sabbath was given to God’s people Israel for the benefit of the people, and that the legalistic trappings of the Pharisees were not the intent of God’s commandment to keep holy the sabbath day.

The scripture on the bridegroom to which you refer is Christ foretelling the crucifixion.

 

[Johenz]

Well, they should have paid attention then.

So, what you’re ready to assert, or are already asserting is that James White and your pastor, attending divinity school 2000 years after the fact recieved more of the truth than did men who attended “divinity school” in St John the Evangelist’s living room?

I’d suggest you read some of the writings of St Justin Martyr, St Irenaeus of Lyon and see what those Christians in the first generation or so after the Apostles believed about the Presence Of Christ in the Eucharist, and then see whther their beliefs match your and your pastor’s, or whether they are the beliefs espoused by the Catholic Church today. Get back to me after you’ve done this and we’ll talk.

 

[Church_Militant]

Excuse me, but I don’t even think many of the early Church fathers went to seminary.
Mr. Swindoll went to Dallas Theological Seminary where the greatest theological minds that ever were attended.

No, you’re right. They only studied with the apostles, and then paid for their faith with their lives, (By being thrown to wild animals)…

I assumed that I was being laughed at because I saw a smiley face rolling on the ground laughing.

If you could see how blindly you are following the teachings of these men…you’d wish it was something to laugh about.

Well that is probably what your church has told you, but the Holy Spirit had told me differently, and I am born again.

Prove that you are born again?

The Catholic Church didn’t just tell me this. The Bible tells me this, the Catholic Church teaches what the Bible does.

The Holy Spirit is God, and God commanded that we do not drink blood. God would not contradict himself.

Really? Well then what about the sabbath? Same God, same religion, same law. Christ showed that it didn’t mean what some people thought it did didn’t He? So was He wrong? Who’s the authority in this? Men…or Christ?

Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law but fulfill it. How can being in complete contradiction of the law be fulfilling it.

You tell me…If the Son of God tells me that a piece of bread is His body, and the wine in a cup is His blood, and then tells me to eat and drink same, then who should I obey? The Lord Jesus Christ, or a bunch of preachers who impressed you with their degrees. According to their theology, you are supposed to be able to read the Bible for yourself and be able to get your doctrine correct, and yet you have already gone way out of your way to indicate that you believe what your pastor says, what his teacher told him, and what James White says. They’re just men…

Well, they should have paid attention then.

And perhaps you should also have when you were being taught by whatever spirit taught you this stuff.

 

[savedsinner]

Well you see, the New Testament hadn’t been written yet, so some of the early church fathers can be excused from not understanding it the way many of today’s ministers do, I am not blaming them, just pointing out the obvious.
As for the rest, they were too busy being martyred to actually have time to really read the New Testament, and fully understand it like my pastor does. Again I am not blaming them, I am just pointing out what is obvious to me.

 

[Church_Militant]

What Jesus was saying is that they did not have to obey that law when he was present here on earth. He said once he left that they would have to obey the law again. Something about when the bridegroom is present the guests don’t fast, but when the bridegroom is gone, then they will fast.

Therefore that exception from the law is self retiring.

Support that from the Word of God. Show me where that is stated in the New Testament. I don’t think you can, because I happen to know that it’s not there.

So far you have a lot of teachings of men that do not line up with the Word of God or the teachings of the early church and not much else. If this is what you choose to believe, that’s on you, but don’t try to tell Catholics that you are teaching them Biblical truth, because it not true, “plain and simple”.

 

[Johenz]

Well you see, the New Testament hadn’t been written yet, so some of the early church fathers can be excused from not understanding it the way many of today’s ministers do, I am not blaming them, just pointing out the obvious.
As for the rest, they were too busy being martyred to actually have time to really read the New Testament, and fully understand it like my pastor does. Again I am not blaming them, I am just pointing out what is obvious to me.

Well, if the New Testament hadn’t been written yet, and they were “bible believing” Chirstains, how did they know what to believe?

 

[savedsinner]

No, you’re right. They only studied with the apostles, and then paid for their faith with their lives, (By being thrown to wild animals)… If you could see how blindly you are following the teachings of these men…you’d wish it was something to laugh about. Prove that you are born again?

Well I accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior about six months ago, and was therefore born again.

The Catholic Church didn’t just tell me this. The Bible tells me this, the Catholic Church teaches what the Bible does.

I have to say my church teaches something else, and my pastor went to seminary.

Really? Well then what about the sabbath? Same God, same religion, same law. Christ showed that it didn’t mean what some people thought it did didn’t He? So was He wrong? Who’s the authority in this? Men…or Christ?You tell me…If the Son of God tells me that a piece of bread is His body, and the wine in a cup is His blood, and then tells me to eat and drink same, then who should I obey? The Lord Jesus Christ, or a bunch of preachers who impressed you with their degrees. According to their theology, you are supposed to be able to read the Bible for yourself and be able to get your doctrine correct, and yet you have already gone way out of your way to indicate that you believe what your pastor says, what his teacher told him, and what James White says. They’re just men…And perhaps you should also have when you were being taught by whatever spirit taught you this stuff.
I listen to these men because they have dedicated their lifes for the truth.
And I only listen to the truth.

 

[savedsinner]

Well, if the New Testament hadn’t been written yet, and they were “bible believing” Chirstains, how did they know what to believe?

They didn’t, that is why even though they might have some insights, they were not 100 % on their teaching, unlike teachers like my pastor and James White.