Jesus denied transubstantiation

[Philthy]

Not Worthy,

…I was very clear on why Jesus became more graphic with them. He was implementing irrational logic. To teach them the way He did by becoming more graphic with them, He, without lying, gave them what the end result of their disbelief would eventually bring.

The same way a person would use reverse psychology with a child. “Well, I guess since you won’t clean your room you must not care about your toys”. The child will find that offensive, because they do like their toys. But, the parent knowing that help the child to reach the end final logic of their rebellious attitude.

John
www.gideonsword.net

The only problem John, is that - unlike the child who does comprehend and respond by cleaning their room, no one “reached the end of their rebellious attitude” as a result of Jesus’ teaching in John 6. In fact, the opposite happened, and they “followed no more”. This is an irrefutable fact which contradicts your reasoning and leaves a gaping hole in your “logic”.
In addition, your claim that Jesus used “irrational logic” to “teach them” what the “end result of their disbelief would bring” is itself irrational. What point would it serve and why would he be so misleading about the manner in which he presents it that no one could understand him?
And your contention that he did not lie is weak, very weak. Let me show you why. If a child (disciples) were to ask an adult (Christ) whether jumping off a 300 foot cliff would kill them, would it be a lie to say, “No, jumping off the cliff won’t kill you.” ? Of course it would. But according to your standard, it would not be a lie because jumping off the cliff doesnt kill you - crashing into the ground below does. You are applying the same standard to Christ in John 6 in order to hold your argument together, and it is weak.

 

[Milliardo]

Are you saying that if a person is properly trained they cannot possibly go into apostacy?

If that were so, then wouldn’t you say that the Church was in apostasy for 1,500 years? but a Church in apostasy would then not form the canon you have now, would it? Nor would you now have the teaching of the Trinity that’s defended in Nicaea if it’s in apostasy.

Are you prepared to say that the Catholic Church succeeded in properly training Luther?

Luther openly declared his revolt; St. Ignatius maintained his staunch loyalty to Christ and His Church, or do you dispute that? Again, this shows how little you know of the Church Fathers.

So why should we trust the ECF’s as infallible or (nearly infallible), and not completely trust the original source of this teaching, if it is possible that these men could apostasize?

Because, quite simply, there is no evidence they did so. What evidence do you have that they did? Because they’re against your cherished opinion?

 

[jim1130]

Here’s something else I found on the topic:
Further confirmation is found in the words Jesus used to instruct his ministers to perform it. His statement, “Do this in remembrance of me,” may also be translated, “Offer this as my memorial sacrifice” – a fact Protestant preachers never mention when they talk about this passage. But it has a most important bearing on our discussion, because by telling the apostles to offer his memorial sacrifice, Jesus clearly ordained them as his priests.In Greek, these words are Totou poiete eis tan emen anamnesin. They are usually translated into English as “Do this in remembrance of me,” but this does not do full justice to the words.
First of all, the word poiein or “do” has sacrificial overtones. This can be seen by examining the way it is used in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament. As Protestant theologian D. M. Baillie says in his book The Theology of the Sacraments,

“There is no doubt that this verb is used frequently in the LXX in a cult or sacrificial sense. Gore says there are from 60 to 80 instances.”

He then goes on to give examples. For instance, Exodus 29:38:

"This is that which you shall offer (poieseis) upon the altar: two lambs . . . "

Here the verb poiein should clearly be translated as offer, as all the Protestant translations of this passage have it. The King James, the Revised Standard, and the New International Version all render it as offer. Jesus’ word anamnesis, usually translated remembrance, also has sacrificial overtones. For example, in the NIV of Hebrews 10:3 we read,

“But those sacrifices are an annual reminder [anamnesis] of sins.”

The word for reminder in this passage is anamnesis. The passage thus tells us that these sacrifices are an annual anamnesis, an annual memorial offering, on behalf of the sins of the people. In fact, all of the occurrences of this word in the Protestant Bible, both in New Testament and the Greek Old Testament, occur in a sacrificial context.
An anamnesis of a memorial offering which one brings before God to prompt his remembrance. The thought is the same as when the Psalmist urges God to remember him, or the congregation, or Mount Zion, or how the enemy scoffs, or how God’s servant has been mistreated. The idea of a memorial offering is to present the gift to God and prompt him to take action. For example, in the NIV of Numbers 10:10 we read,

“Also at your times of rejoicing . . . you are to sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, and they will be a memorial [LXX, anamnesis] for you before your God.”

Joachim Jeremias admits this in his book. While liberal Protestant scholarship tried to interpret the Lord’s Supper as a pagan memorial meal which merely commemorated a loved one, Jeremias saw through this and recognized the Palestinian background for the Lord’s Supper and its offering of the elements to God to prompt his remembrance of Jesus and what he did. Jeremias states,

“[T]he command for repetition [of the Lord’s Supper] may be translated: ‘This do, that God may remember me.’ How is this to be understood? Here an old Passover prayer is illuminating. On Passover evening a prayer is inserted into the third benediction of the grace after the meal, a prayer which asks God to remember the Messiah. . . . In this very common prayer, which is also used on other festival days, God is petitioned at every Passover concerning ‘the remembrance of the Messiah’” (Jeremias, 252).

So Jesus’ command to the disciples to “do this in memory” of him was a command to present the elements to God as an anamnesis, as a memorial sacrifice to bring to God’s mind the work that Jesus did on the cross for us.

This comes from James Akin’s essay: The office of the New Testament Priest:

The only aspect I wish to add to “Do this in remembrance of me” is that BEFORE Christ said that, he stated “This is my body” and “This is my blood…”

I think it is important that “This is my body…” and “This is my blood…” occurred BEFORE any reference to “remembrance.” And the matter that the word “is” was used also seems to bring a definitive dynamic to the statement.

That is all that I wish to add.

Peace.

 

[Church_Militant]

Hey John!
Can you please back up and catch my last ontopic post before all this broke loose. It’s on page 2 above where I tried to remind my freinds here that you are not personally the topic of debate here.

People, the issue is not whether John is willing to agree with us, but simply a discussion of the Real Presence. It can be done without ad hominem or getting into speculation about the poster’s style, thought processes, or shoe size. Respond to the topic & nothing more.

Granted the man is a Baptist and by default accepts Sola Scriptura and other beliefs that we consider errors, but only the Eucharist is relevent to this debate. That and decent Christian charity…

I disagree with him…but he’s yet to be unkind or rhetorically anti-Catholic in his posts, so I can live with that. Don’t run the man off. I’d hate to see us behave like those folks over at CARM.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

 

[Odell]

Vocimike, truthstalker, HailMary, Lukelion, and Sean Boyle…
Since none of the last posts by any of you are anywhere near the original topic, but only statements to question my character or spiritual condition… I will assume you have no further (name removed by moderator)ut regarding the subject at hand.

You cannot discredit my interpretation of John 6; 1 Cor. 11; or 1 Cor. 10… so you resort to attacking my credibility. That is a very weak way to debate.

I will resume debate this evening if there is anything posted regarding the topic.
John
www.gideonsword.net

I suppose us not being true Christians dosnt question our credibilaty and spiritual condition.

vocimike,
As a matter of fact, I do have proof that there are others who have disagreed with the Catholic Church on transubstantiation earlier than the reformation… But I’m not going to cite them because it will do nothing to prove my point. It will only lead to off topic discussion as to whether or not they are “true Christians”.
John
www.gideonsword.net

cordivae,
Because I have the Holy Spirit to teach me…

so you are infaliable when interpriting scripture?

Truthstalker,
If the same infallible scripture (the Bible) assures us of the promise of the Holy Spirit, and we, upon faith in Christ according to the Word of God recieve that same Holy Spirit and that same Holy Spirit (according to the promise) teaches us a truth that is contradictory to another person or group who also claims the indwelling of the Holy Spirit we can then begin to draw some hypothesis regarding those people…

nowhere in scripture does it say that the Holy Spirit will lead you to an infallible interpritation.

John does your interpritation of scripture deffend and uphold the truth? or is it The Churchs interpritation of scripture?

Do you think maybe the ECF possibly gave heed to seducing spirits? Why do priests forbid to marry?

because the bible says so!

Why do you forbid to eat meat on Friday? Could it be that thier conscience was seared with a “hot iron”?

we are not forbiding to eat meat but the bible does say we will fast when the bridegroom leaves earth!

I am sorry for answering this question as I know it is off topic. To answer this question does qualify my authority to address the original topic though.
John
www.gideonsword.net

dont be sorry, just dont point fingers when we get off topic. It is very easy to do. we have the question of athority here so it is going to happen. and I think it isnt necesarly bad to get alittle off topic.

that being said since we are not true Christians may I ask what is a true Christian. since this did come up I have to respond I cant let you go on to believe such.

 

[Sabda]

John,
You stated above that you do have evidence that the early Church did not believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. I’m interested in seeing your evidence, if you don’t mind.

 

[bibleapologist]

Orionthehunter,

John, with all do respect, a more accurate moniker would be “Johnapologist”. I read thru every one of your posts and the many responses. So many took great effort to try to present to you their view of the Scripture. They gave great support for their view with backup from the Bible, contemporaries of St. John, and theologians throught history regarding the Real Presence. You ignored them all and relied on your own interpretation which required mental gyrations of great magnitude. Frankly, without knowing more about you and your credentials, they would be morons for substituting all these reputable sources for yours.

I have quoted and elucidated the scripture exhaustively on this matter. To read back throught the posts would give a clear indication of that. Also you would find that although a select few had legitimate arguments (which I have refuted), most of the responses were aimed to either discredit me in some way, or intimidate me… neither of which has had an effect on me… and neither will yours.

Do you have a legitimate argument to make, or can you only scorn me?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Truthstalker]

Orionthehunter,

I have quoted and elucidated the scripture exhaustively on this matter. To read back throught the posts would give a clear indication of that. Also you would find that although a select few had legitimate arguments (which I have refuted), most of the responses were aimed to either discredit me in some way, or intimidate me… neither of which has had an effect on me… and neither will yours.

Do you have a legitimate argument to make, or can you only scorn me?

John
www.gideonsword.net

Would you mind reprising the select, few arguments and show their refutation? To my mind you have not proven anything and ignored a lot. People have also demonstrated logical fallacies in your position. I will agree there’s been a lot of ground covered quickly here, and it is difficult in a debate to look at oneself without some bias. That’s true for me as well as you.

I’m not sure people were aiming to discredit you or intimidate you - that certainly has not been my intent. I’ve pointed out logical consequences and necessary preconditions to your arguments, which you have not answered as far as I can tell. I would like to think you are not dismissing them as a personal attack. I would hope we can emerge as friends from this debate. Some have gotten a little cranky, and I would not like to have some of the things said to me that have been said to you on this thread, and for my part in that if any I apologize. It would be good if we could all stick to the issues.

 

[visavismeyou]

Well Bibleapologist, you responded to the things I didn’t really care about, and did not reply to the things I wanted you to, so I will be concise this time.

You must reconcile:

1. Your initial premise of “Jesus denied transubstantiation” must be a farcical attention grabber as it is in opposition to the bible (Jesus never said “this bread and wine is not my body”)
2. Why in John 6:60 do the Jews leave Jesus in disgust if Jesus did not say that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood literally? If he had reverted, as you say, to a softer teaching saying these things figuratively, they would not have been disgusted.

He did not use reverse psychology or any other such means, such claims are unsupported because Jesus spoke to teach, not to ridicule, humiliate and disenfranchise. Remember there is a break between John 6:59 and John 6:60

1. If Jesus used these references to drinking his blood and eating his flesh as figures of speech, he would have been using them in the same way as these phrases are used in the O.T. Thus these lines would read, in context of the figure of speech, as: "He who ridicules the Son of Man has eternal life.”

I did not attack you one bit, I used the original source and logical arguments, please respond in the like. I understand you have many people to respond to, I have been in your position before, however, I have read through nearly all of this thread and these 3 things are not answered.

 

[bibleapologist]

Church Militant,

Is this the post you were referring to?

Sorry I didn’t respond…

This may be your position but it is not at all supported by the writings of the those who were discipled into the faith by the apostles (Nor by the New Testament, as I have shown.) Ignatius of Antioch is quite clear on this matter in his letter to the church at Smyrna, and he agrees with the passages that I have cited in my case.

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. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

LINK
I don’t think you can cite anyone prior to this who contested the doctrine and I can cite a great many subsequent ECF who agree with the New Tetsament and Ignatius.
There’s no denial of transubstantiation by Our Lord or by the apostles, nor by the ECF John. It’s simply not there…

Here is my position on that. I completely understand your (and others) consulting the ECF’s on the subject, and quoting them here. I understand the logic behind it too… If there seems to be a passage that is unclear from scripture, consult those who were closest to the source. That makes perfect sense to me.

But, here are my problems with trusting the ECF’s interpretation of scripture.

1. Just because an ECF was taught by an Apostle does not mean by default they are not Apostate. Remember the Corinthians, they were evangelized by Paul, but they soon had problems that Paul had to rectify.
2. Although the Bible as we know it was not complete until later, the E’st of CF had the original letters that were written by the Apostles. The ECF’s would have had these letters to review before making their apology’s.
3. We have the recorded words of Jesus at our disposal today, we also have the letters of the Apostles (and others), and a record of the Acts of the Apostles. The only reason we would have for submitting completely to the ECF’s is that we are too apathetic to search the scripture for ourselves. Although, as a sincere Christian we have the Holy Spirit to teach us (comparing spiritual things with spiritual), we cannot be taught if we don’t take what He has given us to learn from (the Bible).
4. I can’t be absolutely sure of any ECF’s spiritual condition… whether they were truly born-again or not. If one was not born again, and they interpreted scripture without the help of the Holy Spirit they would undoubtedly miss any spiritual application in that passage.
5. Since any explication of a truth, or exegesis of a passage that fails to appreciate the spiritual application of that passage or truth is in error, the person that made that error was not being led by the Spirit of God in their study. And since I believe that to be the case with the ECF’s that were quoted here, and the ECF’s that the Catholic Church bases their doctrine on, I cannot reply to those quotes on any other grounds other than… they have missed the spiritual application that I have previously elucidated many times.

When it comes to the ECF’s, I am not dodging their interpretation… I simply refuse to entertain a non-spiritual interpretation of the passage.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Truthstalker,

I’m not sure people were aiming to discredit you or intimidate you - that certainly has not been my intent. I’ve pointed out logical consequences and necessary preconditions to your arguments, which you have not answered as far as I can tell. I would like to think you are not dismissing them as a personal attack. I would hope we can emerge as friends from this debate. Some have gotten a little cranky, and I would not like to have some of the things said to me that have been said to you on this thread, and for my part in that if any I apologize. It would be good if we could all stick to the issues.

There are no hard feelings here on my part. I am only trying to keep the posting on topic. Some people out of frustration lash out at the person who they believe to be causing their frustration… I am not angry with them, just trying to direct that frustration toward the topic.

BTW you are one of those people I mentioned that had legitimate arguments… it has been challenging, and fun to debate with you.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[NotWorthy]

When it comes to the ECF’s, I am not dodging their interpretation… I simply refuse to entertain a non-spiritual interpretation of the passage.

John
www.gideonsword.net

I think that is the crux of the whole matter. We, as Catholics, simply refuse to entertain a spiritual interpretation of the passage. The Early Church refused to entertain a spiritual interpretation of the passage.

Any more questions?

 

[bibleapologist]

visavismeyou,

1. Your initial premise of “Jesus denied transubstantiation” must be a farcical attention grabber as it is in opposition to the bible (Jesus never said “this bread and wine is not my body”)

You caught me! That title was designed to be an attention grabber to incite debate. But it was in no way farcical as Jesus did deny transubstantiation by His inexorable elucidation of the truth and the spiritual application of His teaching.

1. Why in John 6:60 do the Jews leave Jesus in disgust if Jesus did not say that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood literally? If he had reverted, as you say, to a softer teaching saying these things figuratively, they would not have been disgusted.

Very simply, because they refused to believe the spiritual application of His teaching. Since they required a sign, Jesus showed them that by refusing to believe the spiritual application… the only other way to take His teaching was to understand it as “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood”. The Jews couldn’t take that either so they left.

1. If Jesus used these references to drinking his blood and eating his flesh as figures of speech, he would have been using them in the same way as these phrases are used in the O.T. Thus these lines would read, in context of the figure of speech, as: "He who ridicules the Son of Man has eternal life.”

I’m sorry I don’t understand your question here.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[NotWorthy]

To “eat my flesh” if taken figuratively, would mean to “revile” someone. So if Jesus says “you must eat my flesh”, and he’s speaking spiritually, He would mean, “You must revile me in order to have eternal life”.

Here’s the quote I was looking for:
Another Protestant objection revolves around the claim that Christ’s phrase “to eat his flesh and drink his blood” was a figurative way of saying to believe and have faith in Him. There is some truth in the assertion that such a phrase had a figurative meaning, however, in the cultures of the Middle East it rather meant to calumniate, revile, attack or insult someone unjustly. It is therefore nonsense to argue that Christ would have used this phrase in the popular figurative sense, for that would have been tantamount to Christ asking His followers to sin against Him in order to inherit eternal life!

 

[Sabda]

1. Just because an ECF was taught by an Apostle does not mean by default they are not Apostate. Remember the Corinthians, they were evangelized by Paul, but they soon had problems that Paul had to rectify.
2. Although the Bible as we know it was not complete until later, the E’st of CF had the original letters that were written by the Apostles. The ECF’s would have had these letters to review before making their apology’s.
3. We have the recorded words of Jesus at our disposal today, we also have the letters of the Apostles (and others), and a record of the Acts of the Apostles. The only reason we would have for submitting completely to the ECF’s is that we are too apathetic to search the scripture for ourselves. Although, as a sincere Christian we have the Holy Spirit to teach us (comparing spiritual things with spiritual), we cannot be taught if we don’t take what He has given us to learn from (the Bible).
4. I can’t be absolutely sure of any ECF’s spiritual condition… whether they were truly born-again or not. If one was not born again, and they interpreted scripture without the help of the Holy Spirit they would undoubtedly miss any spiritual application in that passage.
5. Since any explication of a truth, or exegesis of a passage that fails to appreciate the spiritual application of that passage or truth is in error, the person that made that error was not being led by the Spirit of God in their study. And since I believe that to be the case with the ECF’s that were quoted here, and the ECF’s that the Catholic Church bases their doctrine on, I cannot reply to those quotes on any other grounds other than… they have missed the spiritual application that I have previously elucidated many times.

When it comes to the ECF’s, I am not dodging their interpretation… I simply refuse to entertain a non-spiritual interpretation of the passage.

So basically your saying that history itself can not be trusted? Many if not most of the ECF used Scripture to support their positions. I have personally found that the ECF have helped me to understand certain passages of Scripture better.
Also we only have SOME of what Jesus said. We do not have ALL of what Jesus said. That would be a reason for going to the ECF. It’s helpful to use the ECF to see just what exactly it was the early Christians believed on a particular topic that is discussed in Scripture. Belief in the Real Presence is an example of this. This helps us to understand just what it was that the apostles were taught by Jesus. If the early Christians believed in the Real Presence then that means that they were taught this by the apostles who were taught by Jesus. Not saying that the Scripture isn’t clear on this because it is. However, some issues Scripture isn’t quite so clear on, which would be a reason the ECF would be helpful. I personally like to use BOTH Scripture AND the ECF.

 

[JaneFrances]

I think that is the crux of the whole matter. We, as Catholics, simply refuse to entertain a spiritual interpretation of the passage. The Early Church refused to entertain a spiritual interpretation of the passage.

Any more questions?

Actually, my brother, we, as Catholics, do not refuse to entertain spiritual interpretations! We wholly acknowledge the importance and power of all things spiritual.

Let us not be so quick to defend so as to misrepresent our position. We do not take the “either/or” route. We do not limit our God. We know that throughout salvation history He has worked faithfully to nourish us spirit AND body.

His Life, Death on the Cross and Resurrection have attained for us new life in Him. We are not merely spiritual beings, but whole human persons made from His hands.

As our God became Man, the Son renewed and fulfilled the Father’s covenant with his people. We share, as His children, His Body AND His Spirit. We do not deny one in favor of the other.

Mr. Bibleapologist’s arguement depends upon his misconception that we would deny the spiritual. We do not. We acknowledge it and accept it entirely. This is the nature of Sacrament. . .where the spiritual and the physical meet.

 

[Church_Militant]

Church Militant,

Is this the post you were referring to?

Sorry I didn’t respond…

It is indeed. Thank you.

I disagree with you, but as Spock would say, “fascinating…”

Here is my position on that. I completely understand your (and others) consulting the ECF’s on the subject, and quoting them here. I understand the logic behind it too… If there seems to be a passage that is unclear from scripture, consult those who were closest to the source. That makes perfect sense to me.

Thank you. That clarifies the thinking behind why you believe as you do. I’ll deal with each of your points seperately because I think it’s important.

But, here are my problems with trusting the ECF’s interpretation of scripture.

1. Just because an ECF was taught by an Apostle does not mean by default they are not Apostate. Remember the Corinthians, they were evangelized by Paul, but they soon had problems that Paul had to rectify.

I’ve seen similar arguments before. A couple of points.

1. It’s fairly unrealistic to assert that an ECF might’ve fallen into apostasy.
   a) Ignatius was a bishop of the church and suffered martyrdom for the faith. These are not the marks of an apostate.
   b) Since his writings align with the plain sense of the New Testament and the beliefs of the rest of Christianity for the following 1900 years I submit there is really no evidence of apostasy
   c) The Corinthian church did not fall into apostasy. Just immorality and divisions. There is a pretty big difference and so I think they are not a good example to use to support your case there.

1. Although the Bible as we know it was not complete until later, the E’st of CF had the original letters that were written by the Apostles. The ECF’s would have had these letters to review before making their apology’s.

I have to question your assertion here, since we have no empirical evidence to support it. Personally, I have to disagree because although there were letters and documents circulating, they were unlikely to be as available as you seem to think. It was about 13-1400 years before the printing press made scripture widely available, and the apostles couldn’t just pop down to the Jerusalem Kinko’s and run copies to be faxed all over the then known world. I suspect that the distribution (under severe persecution no less) of the apostolic writngs may have been a good bit slower than you seem to think. We can’t really know for sure though so this is really just supposition.

However, Ignatius and Polycarp did indeed know St. John, the author of his gospel, so I would think that if anyone had an insight into the apostle’s inspiration for the 6th chapter, Ignatius would have been one of them. (still supposition)

1. We have the recorded words of Jesus at our disposal today, we also have the letters of the Apostles (and others), and a record of the Acts of the Apostles. The only reason we would have for submitting completely to the ECF’s is that we are too apathetic to search the scripture for ourselves.

Although, as a sincere Christian we have the Holy Spirit to teach us (comparing spiritual things with spiritual), we cannot be taught if we don’t take what He has given us to learn from (the Bible).I have to disagree with your statement here as well John. I have and do diligently study the Word of God and I refer to the ECF as a simple check as to whether I read a given passage with the same Holy Spirit inspired thinking that they do. As I pointed out above, (and in my other Eucharistic posts and threads) Ignatius was close with John and John authored the 6th chapter of his gospel. Who would have had better access to the meanings that St. John intended than he?

It’s not apathy John, not by any means. It’s obeying St. Paul’s instructions to St. Timothy when he told him, “Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” (2nd Timothy 2:15)
(Cont’d)

 

[DianJo]

According to the article I referenced, and the many posts I have added to this thread, I believe people in Church started denying the Eucharist when the Catholic Church started proclaiming it.

John
www.gideonsword.net

You believe incorrectly. We have been trying to correct you with historical accounts and you just seem to ignore them.

I am truly amazed at this - WHO IN THE WORLD DO YOU THINK THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS WERE?
They WERE the Catholic Church! They were the bishops that taught the faithful. They were the ones who taught the faithful about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Everyone who was Christian was a Catholic Christian!

The term Catholic was coined by Ignatius of Antioch around 107AD.

 

[visavismeyou]

visavismeyou,
You caught me! .

And again, to say "Jesus denied " Means Jesus must have directly spoken against it. This is rather irrelevant though, I just wanted to see if it was an attention grabber, and it must be farce as the theory of transubstantiation was created by the very lines you are saying were the lines that Jesus denied it. He cannot deny something unless it already exists.

Very simply, because they refused to believe the spiritual application of His teaching. Since they required a sign, Jesus showed them that by refusing to believe the spiritual application… the only other way to take His teaching was to understand it as “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood”. The Jews couldn’t take that either so they left.

Well… I think we are at an in pass because at this juncture, because you are saying that Jesus is attempting to “test their faith” by giving them a false teaching “You must literally eat my flesh” to make them leave yet Jesus did not actually mean it… sort of Jesus: “Eat my flesh… SIKE!”

Interesting proposition but I think it furthers the Catholic position as what you stated here says that Jesus was telling them “My flesh is the bread of life, you must eat the bread of life in order to live”

I’m sorry I don’t understand your question here

Ok what I said was:

If Jesus used these references to drinking his blood and eating his flesh as figures of speech, he would have been using them in the same way as these phrases are used in the O.T. Thus these lines would read, in context of the figure of speech, as: "He who ridicules the Son of Man has eternal life.”

To clarify, everything Jesus said which referred to the O.T. (such as the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter is a reference to Isaiah 22:22) carried with it a well known meaning. The line that Jesus spoke while he was on the Cross is the first line of Psalm 22 it goes on and on. References to the O.T. carried meaning with them.

If Jesus was saying “eat my flesh drink my blood” in any way other than literal (saying spiritual would carry the same message as figurative or metaphorically) then he would be saying "He who ridicules the Son of Man has eternal life.” Because to eat the flesh and drink the blood of someone carries with it a meaning of ridiculing and attacking the person (the meaning used in the O.T.). Thus, the Jews understood Jesus meant this literally, for if he meant it in any other way Jesus would have been saying "He who ridicules (or attacks) the Son of Man has eternal life.” You must take the whole of John 6 in social context.

Rather, they thought his teaching was too difficult to teach. They felt they could not teach “You must eat the flesh of this guy Jesus in order to get to heaven” and they did not have the faith required to take in such a teaching and understand that it is not a matter of taboo cannibalism, it is a matter of faith of the directive of receiving Jesus as the bread of life.

A little exercise I enjoy doing, comparative reference. Here is John 6:63 from different books:

NKJV
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

NIV
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[a] and they are life.

ASV
It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, are are life.

(from your site) gideonsword.net/articles/BibleDoctrineandTheology/BDTarticles/thebreadoflife.htm
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

The subtle differences are what are revealing here. Jesus says in the NKJV and in your version “The words that I speak to you”. And then in NIV and ASV he says “The words I have spoken” What this shows to me is that Jesus is talking about his entire ministry, he is attempting to display to the Jews whose faith is shaken that he is the Son of God and that they ought to have faith. Think about this in conjunction with Jesus’ entire ministry. Even when he is in Pontius Pilate’s chambers, where he ‘ought’ to defend himself, he only speaks the truth. The other times were people attempt to trap him; he does not speak words to repeal them. Rather he sees through the trap and attempts to display to them that he is who he says he is and that they ought to follow him.

In John 6:63 Jesus is speaking about his entire ministry, not about the conversation earlier that day (John 6: 1-59) rather about all of his words.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Part 2

From BA 5. Since any explication of a truth, or exegesis of a passage that fails to appreciate the spiritual application of that passage or truth is in error, the person that made that error was not being led by the Spirit of God in their study. And since I believe that to be the case with the ECF’s that were quoted here, and the ECF’s that the Catholic Church bases their doctrine on, I cannot reply to those quotes on any other grounds other than… they have missed the spiritual application that I have previously elucidated many times.

This my friend is a line of thought that amazes me in its arrogance. You a person who has never met an immediate successor of the Apostles claim to be capable to determine they were not “led by the Spirit” and thus instruments of Satan and expect us to substitute your personal divine revelation for theirs? Wow. Secondly, the ignorance to assert that the Church “bases (her) doctrine” on ECF’s is laughable. Church Teaching relies on both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. God can’t lie and won’t lie. His Truth is universal. There is no contradiction between Scripture and Tradition, your unsupported accusations notwithstanding.

From BA: When it comes to the ECF’s, I am not dodging their interpretation… I simply refuse to entertain a non-spiritual interpretation of the passage.

This thread would have been alot shorter if you had earlier disclosed your personal belief that you are the only legitimate arbiter of what is divinely inspired and consistent with the Word.

From BA: As a New Testament Christian, I don’t base my doctrine or theology on the teachings of a certain sect, or denomination of Christianity… I base my doctrine and theology on the written Word of God… which is what we should all be doing.

This statement augments my contention that you believe yourself to be the final arbiter of the interpretation of the Word. It must be lonely to be in a church of one. But I can tell you I resent your inference that we are basing our doctrin and theology on something other than the Word.

BA, I think you started this thread by saying that Jesus DENIED transubstantiation. Now, this statement is significantly stronger than asserting that Jesus didn’t propose transubstantiation. I read your entire write-up on the Bread of Life Discourse (John 6). Besides your very clever division of the passage so you can interject your personal interpretation which clouded the passage’s message and removed it from context, I find it hilarious that you’d still be so bold as to not include this passage: “As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.” You cleverly misled people to think it was the metaphore that was difficult and not the entire subject of the discourse: transubstantiation.

You have been quick to use scripture to justify your divine capacity to interpret scripture. Well, your beloved apostle Paul warned us about people who made such claims in 2 Cor, chapter 11: “For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, who masquerade as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan masquerades as an angel of light. So it is not strange that his ministers also masquerade as ministers of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.”