Jesus denied transubstantiation

[Mr_Jullien]

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.

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

Kindly point out to me where, in your Bible, or any other Bible, St. Paul uses the word (or any form of the word), “symbolized” when he refers to Jesus’ Body and Blood when you quote 1Co 11:29.
I do not want your fallible interpretation or what you think St. Paul is saying; I want the exact quote in Chapter and verse, please. Because I cannot find it, either implicitly or explicitly.

And nowhere, in the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper, does Jesus imply that He is only speaking symbolically or metaphorically.
To say that He is, is putting words in Our Blessed Lord’s Mouth.

If you cannot show me this, in black and white, then please do not take it upon yourself to put words in St. Paul’s or Jesus’ mouth, for that is nothing less than presumption, and at the very least, quite offensive to those of us who take Sacred Scripture seriously.

Thank you,

Jullien

 

[Mr_Jullien]

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

Exactly, Little Mary.

Thank you,

Jullien

 

[JaneFrances]

Well, it seems that by studying the scripture it is not so hard to come to the truth.

It may seem this way to you, bibleapologist, however Scriptures hold otherwise.

As St. Peter writes: “There are certain passages in them hard to understand. The ignorant and the unstable distort them (just as they do the rest of Scripture) to their own ruin.” (2 Pet. 3:16)

Studying scripture IS hard. Coming to the Truth IS hard. This is precisely why Jesus gave us an authoritative Church (which is the “pillar and bulwark of truth” 1 Tim. 3:15) to guide us and protect us from error. This is precisely why we are exhorted throughout Scripture to hold fast to “sound doctrine” and “teaching proper to true religion” (1 Tim. 6:3) amidst false teachers. This is precisely why we are constantly called to conversion. We are called away from all that which is “easy” towards the Cross.

You have actually made my next argument for me. Paul, while still using the analogy of eating and drinking he said…

You have not offered ONE proof from Scripture which supports your “analogy” interpretation. Basically, you have provided a treatise of your own personal reflection and interpretation and have expected us to take your word over the teachings of the Apostles, their disciples, and a full 1400 years of solid Christian tradition.

Try again–use quotations, not just your opinion.

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…

Prove it.

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.

They hadn’t believed in WHAT?

Let’s see what St. Paul says. . .

“He who eats and drinks without **recognizing **the body ****eats and drinks a judgement on himself.” (1 Cor. 11:29)

Your interpretation fits your theology, but your theology doesn’t fit with what is actually written by St. Paul.

St. Paul is very clear. As is Ignatius of Antioch:
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

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?

We do take St. Paul’s statement literally.

He said:

“I received from the Lord what I handed on to you, namely, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread, and after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper, he took the cup saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” Every time, then, you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes!" (1 Cor. 11:23-26)

He explains further:

“This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor. 11:27)

All of this is taken very literally. What was your point?

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

And you know this how?

Could you explain to me how damnation could manifest itself literally in a cup?

The very same way damnation can manifest itself literally in a piece of fruit from a tree in a garden.

We acknowledge God’s solemn power to do what it is that he says he will do, for we know that His word will not return to him void.

Damnation is a state of being brought about by unbelief (not discerning the Lord’s body).

Actually, no, damnation is God’s justice brought about by disobedience. Salvation is his mercy.

And what exaclty is the extension of your interpretation? If we don’t recognize the Church (which is the Lord’s body) are we damned? As you have pointed out in previous posts, Jesus ascended into heaven, so how do you recognize “the Lord’s body,” if not in the Eucharist? This is all very interesting. . .

It could not be literally manifested as a liquid form in a cup… or is that also part of the Catholic Teaching of transubstantiation?

I have no idea what you are trying to say. . .and I think you may not either.

 

[NotWorthy]

John,

Where in the Early Church Teachings does anyone write that Jesus is obviously speaking metaphorically? And if so, there are probably 10 rebutals from other ECF’s.

 

[Vidi_Aquam]

It sometimes makes me chuckle (or shiver, I don’t know) how many Protestants will argue that “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” must be interpreted hyper-literally in their argument against the Immaculate Conception, but “For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink” must be interpreted hyper-metaphorically in order to avoid transubstantiation.

I guess it’s just the traditional Protestant bias, rejecting anything that smells of Catholicism, no matter the cost.

Jeremy

Very, very well put.

 

[Writer]

I realize this will be a controversial topic. But I hope it will be a fruitful one that will lead to a clearer interpretation of the truth.

To save forum space, I have written my arguments in article form and published them to my website…
You can view it here.

I am looking forward to kind, and charitable conversation.

John
www.gideonsword.net

I applaud you for trying to address a complex topic, but I suggest you have not arrived at the answer as yet. Isn’t it ironic, though, how Protestants demand literal interpretation at all times–sometimes disregarding contextual and cultural issues that suggest otherwise when a closer examination is done-- but, in the case of Eucharist, they assert it must be symbolic. After all, the alternative makes them uncomfortable. Just like how Lewis describes Aselin as not being a “tame lion”, we are not always supposed to be comfortable with the mysteries that are conveyed to us through the Bible and through tradition. I think it is clear what Christ meant when he said “this is my body” and “this is my blood”. He meant to say precisely what he said. It’s up to us to try to catch a glimmer of the mystery.

 

[bibleapologist]

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.

It sounds like we have a good place to start then. We both agree that Paul was referring to discerning the Lord’s Body. Where we now have to reconcile is what is the object of discernment entitled the “Lord’s body”? It can only be one of two things…

1. The bread of the eucharist. or
2. The actual body of Jesus that was hung on the cross.

It cannot be both, as I don’t see a dual reference to the object of discernment in Paul’s statement.

I think in light of the overall theme of the Bible, and Jesus’ many references to Himself as the Lamb of God. The Old Testament prophecy of the lamb being slain for sin. And the vision of John of the Lamb which was slain in heaven. I don’t see any room for considering Paul’s reference to the object of discernemnt as being a loaf of bread.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

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?

By the Spirit of God which teaches His children all things… comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

1John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Mr Jullian,

Kindly point out to me where, in your Bible, or any other Bible, St. Paul uses the word (or any form of the word), “symbolized” when he refers to Jesus’ Body and Blood when you quote 1Co 11:29.
I do not want your fallible interpretation or what you think St. Paul is saying; I want the exact quote in Chapter and verse, please. Because I cannot find it, either implicitly or explicitly.

You won’t find any verse where Paul or Jesus used the word “symbolized”. But in 1 Cor. 11 we can see that Paul used the words “drink” and “eat” symbolically to describe one who brings damnation to himself by not discerning the Lord’s body.

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

We can therefore reasonable conclude that he was also using those same words symbolically when referring to the “body” and the “blood”.

Jesus also when contending with the Jews (which conversation Paul was alluding to), also used the same symbolism by comparing Himself with the manna from heaven in the wilderness. He was claiming to be the magnificent sign the Jews were seeking.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[kevb]

Corvidae,

It sounds like we have a good place to start then. We both agree that Paul was referring to discerning the Lord’s Body. Where we now have to reconcile is what is the object of discernment entitled the “Lord’s body”? It can only be one of two things…

1. The bread of the eucharist. or
2. The actual body of Jesus that was hung on the cross.

It cannot be both, as I don’t see a dual reference to the object of discernment in Paul’s statement.

I think in light of the overall theme of the Bible, and Jesus’ many references to Himself as the Lamb of God. The Old Testament prophecy of the lamb being slain for sin. And the vision of John of the Lamb which was slain in heaven. I don’t see any room for considering Paul’s reference to the object of discernemnt as being a loaf of bread.

John
www.gideonsword.net

They would also eat the lamb which was slain. I’m still interested to hear your response to post #24 by ChurchMilitant. How do you respond to his quote from Ignatius of Antioch regarding heretics?

 

[JaneFrances]

Jesus also when contending with the Jews (which conversation Paul was alluding to), also used the same symbolism by comparing Himself with the manna from heaven in the wilderness. He was claiming to be the magnificent sign the Jews were seeking.

Not so fast. . .

The Israelites LITERALLY ate the manna.

Jesus was claiming to be the bread which God sent from heaven. To nourish our bodies AND our souls.

 

[gardenswithkids]

It sounds like we have a good place to start then. We both agree that Paul was referring to discerning the Lord’s Body. Where we now have to reconcile is what is the object of discernment entitled the “Lord’s body”? It can only be one of two things…

1. The bread of the eucharist. or
2. The actual body of Jesus that was hung on the cross.

It cannot be both, as I don’t see a dual reference to the object of discernment in Paul’s statement.

I think in light of the overall theme of the Bible, and Jesus’ many references to Himself as the Lamb of God. The Old Testament prophecy of the lamb being slain for sin. And the vision of John of the Lamb which was slain in heaven. I don’t see any room for considering Paul’s reference to the object of discernemnt as being a loaf of bread.

Why do you say it can not be both? Ye of little faith.

In the Old Testament, the lamb was slain and then eaten. But your partly right–'tis no mere loaf of bread that St. Paul discusses. He indeed refers to the Body of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He is the Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world, and happy are we who are called to His supper.

 

[Catholig]

John, I’m no expert in this field, but would at least like you to look at Caeser’s post, along with the one (I can’t remember by who) containing Justin the Martyr’s words. It is obvious that the early church believed it to be the body and blood of christ, and I doubt that you magically discovered and formulated an argument, which they were incapable of concieving, through a translated copy of the bible with utter disregard to any other primary sources.

Also please do reply to every post, do not dodge any.

Catholig

 

[Mr_Jullien]

Mr Jullian,

You won’t find any verse where Paul or Jesus used the word “symbolized”. But in 1 Cor. 11 we can see that Paul used the words “drink” and “eat” symbolically to describe one who brings damnation to himself by not discerning the Lord’s body.

We can therefore reasonable conclude that he was also using those same words symbolically when referring to the “body” and the “blood”.

Jesus also when contending with the Jews (which conversation Paul was alluding to), also used the same symbolism by comparing Himself with the manna from heaven in the wilderness. He was claiming to be the magnificent sign the Jews were seeking.

John
www.gideonsword.net

But in 1 Cor. 11 we can see that Paul used the words “drink” and “eat” symbolically to describe one who brings damnation to himself by not discerning the Lord’s body.

I’m sorry John, but I must politely disagree with you. “We” cannot **see **that St. Paul used the words “drink” and “eat”, symbolically, in any way. Nor should we make any assumptions on that particular passage. It says what it says.
That is merely ***your ***interpretation, and it does not hold up.

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. 26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

“Guilty of the body”… not discerning the body. This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ.

I’m sorry John, but there is no way that text even ***suggests ***St. Paul was speaking symbolically, or even thought of the words “eat” and “drink” as symbolic.
We cannot read more into it than what’s written down in back and white.

Your statement: “Jesus denied transubstantiation”, is not only untrue but unfounded.

Jesus is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity; therefore He is God. And God is not bound by physical laws of men.

PAX,

Jullien

 

[JaneFrances]

It sounds like we have a good place to start then. We both agree that Paul was referring to discerning the Lord’s Body. Where we now have to reconcile is what is the object of discernment entitled the “Lord’s body”? It can only be one of two things…

1. The bread of the eucharist. or
2. The actual body of Jesus that was hung on the cross.

Don’t forget the Church! That’s number 3.

It cannot be both, as I don’t see a dual reference to the object of discernment in Paul’s statement.

Precisely. “The Body” in Sacred Scripture, as indicated above, has at least 3 meanings. St. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians is particularly referring to one meaning.

It is necessary to point out here that meaning #1 is not entirely separate from meanings #2 and #3. They are interconnected.

I think in light of the overall theme of the Bible, and Jesus’ many references to Himself as the Lamb of God. The Old Testament prophecy of the lamb being slain for sin.

And what did they do with the Lamb again?

I don’t see any room for considering Paul’s reference to the object of discernemnt as being a loaf of bread.

Then you aren’t reading what he’s saying. . .here it is again:

23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For whenever **you eat this bread **and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

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. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

 

[stevers]

Dear Bibleapologist,

I hope you will respond to my vision about Holy Communion. Convering to Catholic Faith from Pentecostal was a hard thing for me to do, but I followed The Lord’s direction. Now I see the truth, the light and the love in The Eucharist. Please let me know your response.

Your brother in Christ,

Steve

 

[bibleapologist]

Jane Francis,

It may seem this way to you, bibleapologist, however Scriptures hold otherwise.

And how is that? I have given ample proof scripturally to prove my point, and I have reasoned logically.

You have shown nothing in your prolix to scripturally refute my arguments, except to reiterate that this is what the Catholic Church teaches…

This is precisely why Jesus gave us an authoritative Church (which is the “pillar and bulwark of truth” 1 Tim. 3:15) to guide us and protect us from error. This is precisely why we are exhorted throughout Scripture to hold fast to “sound doctrine” and “teaching proper to true religion” (1 Tim. 6:3) amidst false teachers.

You are avoiding the argument. And BTW, misinterpreting 1 Tim. 3:15.

You have not offered ONE proof from Scripture which supports your “analogy” interpretation. Basically, you have provided a treatise of your own personal reflection and interpretation and have expected us to take your word over the teachings of the Apostles, their disciples, and a full 1400 years of solid Christian tradition.

Again, more of “this is what the Church teaches”. An easy way out… but not a very good argument.

Could you explain to me how damnation could manifest itself literally in a cup?
The very same way damnation can manifest itself literally in a piece of fruit from a tree in a garden.

So are you saying that Eve actually “ate” damnation… or did she eat “unto” herself damnation. Damnation is the judgment of God upon disobedience, not a literal object that would be eaten. Like I previously stated… Paul, was stating to drink unworthily (in unbelief) brings about damnation. Not that one could actually “drink” damnation. He said “drinketh damnation to himself”.

And what exaclty is the extension of your interpretation? If we don’t recognize the Church (which is the Lord’s body) are we damned? As you have pointed out in previous posts, Jesus ascended into heaven, so how do you recognize “the Lord’s body,” if not in the Eucharist? This is all very interesting. . .

First of all let’s play on the same field, the KJV says not that we should “recognize” the Lord’s body, but “discern” it. The word discern is a transitive verb that means to be able to tell the difference between two or more things. Discern here is translated fromt the Greek word “Diakrino” which means to "seperate thoroughly, or discriminate. Paul is telling us in verse 29 to discern, or discriminate between the symbolism of the elements of the Lord’s supper and the real body of Jesus which was “broken for you”.

It could not be literally manifested as a liquid form in a cup… or is that also part of the Catholic Teaching of transubstantiation?

I have no idea what you are trying to say. . .and I think you may not either.

Meaning, damnation. Can you actually dispense damnation to someone in a liquid? I think you do know what I mean, because you tried to refute with the Adam and Eve analogy.

I appreciate your attempt to debate at the end of your post, but I find the rest of your arguments tedious and routine.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[gardenswithkids]

You won’t find any verse where Paul or Jesus used the word “symbolized”. But in 1 Cor. 11 we can see that Paul used the words “drink” and “eat” symbolically to describe one who brings damnation to himself by not discerning the Lord’s body.

“We” see no such thing. You may see symbolism, but I don’t. Consider that maybe St. Paul and St. John actually meant what they wrote, and that Jesus actually meant what He said. Your whole theory rests on the notion that those Bible verses are only symbolic. Is that how you usually explain other points of Holy Scripture?

 

[Milliardo]

Another one of those arguments about the Eucharist. Between the Apostles and Early Church Fathers who taught explicitly about the Real Presence and someone who’d come in 2000 years later and say, ‘You’re wrong", who do you think is more credible? I’ll take on the Apostles and the Church Fathers any day over someone who comes barging in later in the game and try to convince people the early Church was wrong. I’ve seen all the arguments against the Eucharist; it doesn’t stick once held up to the Early Fathers’ words. Their belief is my belief, which is the Church’s belief. Moving on…

 

[bibleapologist]

Kevb,

They would also eat the lamb which was slain. I’m still interested to hear your response to post #24 by ChurchMilitant. How do you respond to his quote from Ignatius of Antioch regarding heretics?

The fact that they also ate the lamb which was slain is irrelevant. Paul already addressed that in 1 Cor. 9:13.

As for Ignatius, I couldn’t care less what he says about heretics. That post by Church Militant was for you and the others viewing this thread to form an opinioin of me, that post was not for me.

John
www.gideonsword.net