Jesus denied transubstantiation

[bibleapologist]

Ceasar,

The belief of transubstantiation is in the writings of the Church Fathers even up to the time of the Apostolic Church. We see in scripture (see my above posts) that the writers of the Gospels, and the Apostles (including St. Paul) believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist.

I’ll let you prove that to me.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

gardenwithkids,

I invite you to consider a different interpretation of John 6. Consider interpreting that passage literally. Don’t get hung up with words like “transubstantiation”; just look at what Jesus says.

I have read the passage shallowly, then to make sure I understood what it was saying, I studied it along with the other teachings of Jesus. This article is my conclusion, not based previous notions of transubstantiation, but according to the truth of the gospel. I would encourage you to study it sincerely.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[corvidae]

You claim that no where did Jesus say “eat me” but rather said believe in me.

But what about the majority of it, Unless you eat of my fFesh and drink of my Blood. I tell you, Unless you eat of me and drink of me. Does this scandalize you, I tell you, unless you eat My Flesh and Drink of My Blood.

Etc.

Repeatedly Christ tells them to believe, not just in Him, but that they can eat His flesh and drink His blood.

Your thesis hinges upon transubstantiation and true christianity, not on the words of John. You disbelieve the “real presence” and so you MUST make those words mean something different.

Again I bring to you one line that disproves the reverse psychology you maintain

For My flesh is real food, and My blood is real drink.

If Jesus said they were real, how can you say they are not.

A lone Raven

 

[Church_Militant]

Elvisman,

If I am right about this interpretation of John 6, it would be illogical to believe that the early Church taught transubstantiation.

And although you can prove through recorded history that the CC has indeed taught transubstantiation since 1215ad, you cannot prove that it was a practice of the “true Church” at any point in history… neither would it matter if they did… it still would not negate the truth.

John
www.gideonsword.net

You’re dead wrong here…
The Epistle of Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrneans

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.

Since Ignatius was discipled by St. John the apostle, this proves that the early church shared the same belief in the real presence that we hold today.

This also aligns with St. Paul’s teaching in 1st Corinthians 10:16 & 11:23-30, which 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?

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.

Transubstantiation is merely the 50 cent term coined by the Council of Trent for a belief that has been held by Christianity for 2,000 years.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

 

[bibleapologist]

Contarini,

And I find it ironic that your signature says “intellectualism is over-rated” when your theology is so radically intellectualist

This statement really has nothing to do with the argument at hand, but is an attack on my methods by accusing me of contradicting my own convictions. This is a shallow argument.

Intellectuallism is over-rated.

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

I fully trust in the teachings of Christ, and inspired scripture. But not on a shallow level, taking obscure passages out of text such as certain verses of John 6. Our finite minds cannot comprehend the operation of spiritual things, so how could we explain them intellectually? We have to come to an understanding by faith, believing God.

The Jews in John 6 could not reasonably accept the spiritual implications of what Jesus was teaching about Himself… that is why they required a sign (some manifestation of God’s power).

Jesus in verses 53-57 showed the Jews that to be His disciple, and trust what He was saying about himself being the “bread of life”, they must either believe in Him… or rationalize His teachings, which could only end in an “irrational” conclusion.

I would ask, since this is an apologetics forum, those who appreciate a well designed argument, to consider the genius with with Jesus drew His opponents to oppose themselves.

Read the article again… it’s amazing!

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[corvidae]

Jesus was not using simple tricks.

If Jesus said My flesh is real food, and My blood is real drink, but it was not, Jesus was a liar

And if Jesus was a liar, Jesus could not be God.

In my opinion, the entirety of the verse hinges on Christ profession that it is REAL

A lone Raven

 

[Ave_Maria_1]

Dear John,

There is an old saying that to those with faith, no explanation is necessary and to those without faith, no explanation is possible.
Another saying is that no one is as blind and those who refuse to see.

Are there words to convince you? Perhaps not for we are speaking in the realm of faith. I do not know how conversant you are with the Fathers of the Church but you will probably not believe them either. The strength to witness to the belief in the Holy Eucharist even by martyrdom came from the nearly daily reception of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. The superhuman and supernatural ability to do what many souls and saints have done for the love of God only comes through the SACRAMENTAL graces flowing from the Holy Eucharist, the Source and Summit of our faith.

I have pity for you who do not know the incredible joy of receiving that very Body and Blood of Christ not only just weekly, but even daily as I do. And I spend time every day in the Real Presence of my Lord. Ah, the humiliy of a God Who not only became Man but remains with us as He promised in the form of Bread. To adore and worship that Holy Eucharist would be rank idolotry if It were not the Body,Blood, Soul and Divinity of MY Savior, Lord and Redeemer. How I love my Lord in the most Holy Sacrament.
The Christ was to remain forever and He has, He has!

There are also Eucharistic Miracles–one is at Lanciano and is about 1300 years old. A priest with doubts of the true Presence of Our precious Lord had the host turn into living Flesh and the Wine became as true Blood. And those Hosts are still there and so are drops of that Blood. They have been analyzed and the Hosts are myocaridum and the Blood is typed. There have been many such miracles over the millenia.

So many have lost the faith. Nations have been lost. For faith is a gift and can be lost. The protestants lost the sacramental life. Many in t he world are pagan or neo-pagan and do not know Our Lord. Many, far too many, Catholics are lukewarm and lazy in their faith or Catholic in name only and this has always been true too. If Catholics would truly live their faith, they would change the world. The grace to do it is there. But the evil one is always present, waiting for souls to devour.

I have a suggesion to you, John. Read Revelation and go to where you know the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is properly offered and be there with an open heart. Ask Jesus to show you the truth.

Bring kleenex.
Ave Maria!

 

[gardenswithkids]

gardenwithkids,

I have read the passage shallowly, then to make sure I understood what it was saying, I studied it along with the other teachings of Jesus. This article is my conclusion, not based previous notions of transubstantiation, but according to the truth of the gospel. I would encourage you to study it sincerely.

John, I read your link. This quote stood out to me: *“He only worded the teaching in such a way to make it sound irrational for those who refused to believe that He was the giver of spiritual life; the author, supporter, and maintainer of it; and eternal life which He gives a right to for those who believe in Him.” *

We know that Jesus is the source of spiritual life. But God is also the Author and Giver and Source of *physical *life. As you wrote, His teaching does sound irrational to those who refuse to believe. If your faith is based on a belief that the spiritual world is entirely separate from the physical world, then I think you misinterpret many Bible passages. God did not merely makes us spiritual beings; He made us human beings–body and spirit. The truth of the Gospel is that Jesus, the Word became flesh, and He died and rose physically, for the salvation of humanity. Not just our spirits, but of our whole person.

 

[kevinfraser]

He was implementing irrational logic.

With all Christian respect and prayers for the salvation of your eternal soul, loved so by God that he sent his only son to save YOU, I have to say to this intellectual construct:

PFAH!

You’re trying to make Jesus an innovative philosopher. No sale. Here’s why:

“How DARE you call our religion violent – WE’LL KILL YOU ALL FOR IT!”

That’s irrational logic too. Jesus could not by his nature go there.

 

[Philthy]

bibleapologist:

Of course, Jesus wasn’t teaching that in order to receive spiritual food they must work in the traditional sense. But the work Jesus was referring to was to believe in Him, which is an action on the part of man to change his mind from previous beliefs regarding justification, and trust God’s plan for justification, which is simply belief in Jesus.

You state this without any back up whatsoever. I reject it since I reject your authority to issue statements.

bibleapologist:

This statement seems to be Jesus’ goal of the conversation with the disciples; to show them that HE IS that miracle which exceeded Moses’ miracle in the wilderness. HE IS what that manna from heaven **symbolized. **Which leads us to the passage that was quoted at the beginning of this article…

Foreshadowed is the term which most properly conveys what Manna was…and it was something that was actually eaten.

bibleapologist:

If the meat Jesus was speaking of was an actual food that was to be taken by placing it in your mouth, and chewing it up… that would have been labor over and above believing, which Jesus said was the “work of God” required to receive the “bread of life” (v. 29 and v. 35).

This is not a comprehensive assessment. I see accepting Jesus in the Eucharist as an act of faith, not a work and therefore outside the realm of your conclusion which pertains to “works”.

bibleapologist:

John 6:47-51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

You have to admit that this is a very stupid way of expressing that if you believe in me you shall live. What is the point of dragging in Moses and the manna, exactly? Why are we talking about eating his flesh, exactly? I thought you said he was trying to address their concerns to be shown a sign comparable to the manna in the desert? It would have been much more logical for him to review the miracles he had worked amongst them: raising the dead, healing the sick, and , yes, producing fish and loaves. But to start intertwining that He is the bread of life and he must be eaten with the discussion of the manna miracle is totally confusing IF all he was trying to say was that “you need to believe in me”.

bibleapologist:

bibleapologist:

They missed the point Jesus was making, that He Himself was the sign they were looking for.

You need to build on this a little. Was Jesus saying this so that when events transpired they would understand or what? Otherwise, what is the point? Is he just talking past them? There was nothing I am aware of in Jesus’ physical presence that altered the reflected light to their eyes to make them see the miracle of Jesus and therefore the “sign they were looking for”

bibleapologist:

bibleapologist:

Of course, Jesus did not lie here; He was still speaking of Himself as the “bread of life” in a spiritual sense.

Actually, you have created your own concept of what a lie is. A lie is any form of communication which intentionally deceives the recipient – even if it is a truth. If what you are saying is true, Jesus did in fact lie; but we know He didn’t lie and that means that your assessment that he is speaking in a spiritual sense is faulty

con’d

 

[bibleapologist]

Church Militant,

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.

Where in this passage does Paul refer to the actual body and blood of Jesus to be taken internally? The ordinance of the Lord’s supper is a proclamation of the death of Christ v. 26. This passage in no way implicates the elements of that meal to be spiritual food.

Also, this is to be done in remembrance of Jesus, and His death. Paul, when he quoted “this is my body”, and “this is my blood” from Luke 22:19 and 20, was quoting Jesus. So let us refer back to that passage as a “first principle”.

That account of the Last Supper was recorded by Matthew, Mark and Luke and they are all almost identical accounts. Jesus, was sitting there with them at the table when He said “take eat, this is my body”, and “this is my blood”.

First of all, for that particular bread to actually become the flesh of Jesus is not only irrational, but contradicts who Jesus is… the sacrificial lamb. Can it be that portions of the Son of God did not become flesh until the last supper? As Jesus in full was sitting with them partaking of the bread also.

And what about the blood, the same thing, how could Jesus, being 100% man and 100% God sitting with them at the table miraculously put His blood into those 13 cups (which is alot of blood). Or how can it be that blood so highly esteemed by God return to earth every time the Catholic Church has mass.

The bible never implicates that the Blood ever went anywhere but to Heaven…

Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, [which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Philthy]

bibleapologist:

Jesus did not teach that we are to actually eat his flesh and drink His Blood,

Actually, he did. We are simply trying to figure out what he meant by it – you have your opinion and the earliest Christians have another. You have also failed to address the issue of why Jesus did not explain himself if his words led others astray as he did several times in the NT (one example is when the disciples misunderstood the “leaven” analogy in Matthew). It would seem to me that his explanation, if it is meant to be purely symbolic, is a pretty poor and misleading one. The proof of that is that everyone who heard it was confused by it, including the Apostles. Also the fact that Ignatious (who was the disciple of the Apostle John, author of the text in question) maintains the literal interpretation of the Eucharist is very strong evidence that John believed the same. You may expound your thoughts on Scripture all day long, but you, like I, will never carry the intellectual weight of the ECFs, and certainly don’t even begin to hold a light to someone like Ignatious who died a martyr and spent years at Johns side.

 

[corvidae]

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

that is directly from Church militants post

Now how do you suppose St. Paul meant eat and drink if he did not mean to take internally?

And how could you eat and drink judgement on yourself if these were not heavenly and spiritual food?

A lone Raven

 

[InLight247]

More scriptural evidence to Transubstantiation

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

**Good job! **Caesar!
Way to go!

 

[mtr01]

The big problem I always find with the “metaphor explanation” is that those putting it forth forget that to “eat the body” and “drink the blood” were already figures of speech in Jesus’ culture. It meant to revile, or harm/attack:

When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell. (Psalm 27:2, KJV).

Whereforeat that timecertain Chaldeans came near, and accused399, 7170 the Jews. (Dan 3:8, KJV) [Strong’s definition of 399: accuse, devour, eat; of word 7170: to eat the morsels of any one, to chew him up]

And the king commanded, and they brought those men which had accused399, 7170 Daniel (Dan 6:24, KJV) [see note above]

Who hate the good, and love the evil; who pluck off their skin from off them, and their flesh from off their bones; Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron. (Mic 3:2-3, KJV)

And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. (Rev 17:16, KJV)

This is why the crowd took Jesus literally, because using this language in this culture, it couldn’t have been a metaphor. They rightly assumed Jesus was speaking literally (to eat), because in their language, interpreting it as a metaphor (harm/attack) makes no sense. It would change the meaning of John 6:53 to something like “Verily, verily I say unto you, except you attack the Son of man and harm him, ye have no life in you. Whoso reviles me and curses me hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day”.

No wonder the crowd interpreted this literally, the metaphor would make absolutely no sense. And I think that if one suggests He was trying to introduce some new metaphor that was different from the one currently used by the Jews of the time without telling them, that person truly is suggesting our Lord was being deceptive. By “forcing” this new metaphor on Jesus’ words, you are therefore suggesting that He let the crowd leave Him and go off to eternal damnation (Matt 10:33) over a misunderstanding caused His own deliberately misleading use of a common Jewish metaphor.

 

[JaneFrances]

Where in this passage does Paul refer to the actual body and blood of Jesus to be taken internally? The ordinance of the Lord’s supper is a proclamation of the death of Christ v. 26. This passage in no way implicates the elements of that meal to be spiritual food.

Paul refers to the actual body and blood of Jesus to be taken internally here:
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. (1 Cor. 11:27-29)

Also, this is to be done in remembrance of Jesus, and His death. Paul, when he quoted “this is my body”, and “this is my blood” from Luke 22:19 and 20, was quoting Jesus. So let us refer back to that passage as a “first principle”.

Actually, let’s refer back to the institution of the Passover as our “first principle.” Do you even know what “remembrance” means?

First of all, for that particular bread to actually become the flesh of Jesus is not only irrational, but contradicts who Jesus is… the sacrificial lamb.

To assume that bread can not actually become the flesh of Jesus contradicts who Jesus is. . .GOD! And we know, through Sacred Scripture, that for God nothing is impossible (Jn. 1:37).

The God we serve specializes in the impossible, not the rational.

Can it be that portions of the Son of God did not become flesh until the last supper? As Jesus in full was sitting with them partaking of the bread also.

And what about the blood, the same thing, how could Jesus, being 100% man and 100% God sitting with them at the table miraculously put His blood into those 13 cups (which is alot of blood).

You are assuming that you have full knowledge of God’s infinite power. You do not. Neither do we. What we can not understand, we accept through faith.

Or how can it be that blood so highly esteemed by God return to earth every time the Catholic Church has mass.

For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 1:11)

Our God has made known to us, through this prophecy, that He intends for His “pure offering” to be present “from the rising of the sun, even to its setting.” We do not limit God.

The bible never implicates that the Blood ever went anywhere but to Heaven…

I would suggest, if you truly believe this, that you reread the Gospels. In particular, John 19.

 

[bibleapologist]

Corvidae,

that is directly from Church militants post

Now how do you suppose St. Paul meant eat and drink if he did not mean to take internally?

And how could you eat and drink judgement on yourself if these were not heavenly and spiritual food?

A lone Raven

Well, it seems that by studying the scripture it is not so hard to come to the truth. You have actually made my next argument for me. Paul, while still using the analogy of eating and drinking he said…

1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

Paul did not meant that the cup or the bread was the Lord’s body, but that the wine and the bread symbolized the body and the blood… and the act of taking it during the ordinance of the Lord’s supper without discerning the death of Christ, and what that death did to give eternal life, was to bring about damnation… not that it had anything at all to do with the wine or the bread, but that they hadn’t believed.

Secondly, as you said, why would Paul think it relevant to make a statement like “drinketh damnation to himself”. If Jesus statement “this is my body”, and “this is my blood” are to be taken literally, then why should this statement by Paul not be taken literally?

The truth is, it was a metaphor, just like hundreds of others in the Bible.

Could you explain to me how damnation could manifest itself literally in a cup? Damnation is a state of being brought about by unbelief (not discerning the Lord’s body). It could not be literally manifested as a liquid form in a cup… or is that also part of the Catholic Teaching of transubstantiation?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[corvidae]

But he is not talking about discerning what the Lord did, he says without discerning the Lord’s body.

Catholic’s do believe you commit a grave sin by accepting the Host and Chalice without believing it is the body of Christ. It is basically saying I believe (by accepting it) but saying you do not believe in your heart. It is a lie directly to God.

You are twisting the word’s of Paul, not I. He talks of discerning the Lord’s body, not of discerning the Lord’s action. He repeats the words of Jesus at the Last Supper.

Jesus himself went out of His way to say REAL food and REAL drink.

As others have shown, the only metaphor that would have been seen at the time does not work.

How then do you persist in your belief. The Catholic version works with the entirety of scripture, your version works if you believe Christ was trying to confuse the logic of his listeners, and doing so by decieving them.

A lone Raven

 

[Magicsilence]

Justin Martyr

We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 A.D. 151]).

:dancing:*

 

[Little_Mary]

By what authority do you say these things, bibleapologist? Is your name listed in the bible itself as an infallible interpreter of the Word?