Jesus denied transubstantiation

[bibleapologist]

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…

You and Jane_Frances must know each other.

Again, absolute denial of reason and logic. If those church fathers really had a complete argument it wouldn’t be so hard to repudiate what I have set forth.

Rather than trusting the Catholic Church’s teaching as infallible, or remaining steadfast in your apathy. Test your arguments against mine.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

gardenwithkids,

BTW I like that username .

“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?

I would like to reply to this, but I would only be reiterating my statements… please see my response to Jane_Frances.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[gardenswithkids]

The fact that they also ate the lamb which was slain is irrelevant.

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.

Why do you think it is irrelevant? How do you come to that conclusion?

By the way, my opinion of you is based only on what you writie, and I am of the opinion that you do not take the Bible literally when it disagrees with your intellect. But I agree with your signiture; intellectuallism is overrated. Stop seeing only symbolism. Try taking Jesus at His word. .

 

[Mr_Jullien]

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

John, with all due respect… You make a bold statment: “Jesus denied transubstantiation”, that you **cannot **back up with Sacred Scripture, no matter how much you try to twist the meaning of the verses to suite your agenda, and you call Jane’s arguments ***tedious ***and routine?

Again, the verse says what it says.

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.

One **cannot **read anything more into it.
One **cannot *make ***it say what one wants it to say.

PAX,

Jullien

 

[bibleapologist]

Jane_Frances,

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:

Then you don’t understand simple sentence structure. The word “discernment” is as I stated a transitive verb… which will reference an “object”. Let’s look at the verse again…

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

The Lord’s Body is the object (noun) of the sentence is “the Lord’s Body”, not another verb like “eateth” or “drinketh”.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Mr. Jullien,

John, with all due respect… You make a bold statment: “Jesus denied transubstantiation”, that you cannot back up with Sacred Scripture, no matter how much you try to twist the meaning of the verses to suite your agenda, and you call Jane’s arguments tedious and routine?

Again, you have done nothing to repudiate my arguments. You only claim that I have misinterpreted scripture, and fail to offer any substantiation to prove your claim.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

gardenwithkids,

Why do you think it is irrelevant? How do you come to that conclusion?

If you thought a person to be a liar, would you trust his opinion of you if he called you a liar?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[The_Augustinian]

“Beware the man of one book.”

That’s trhe trouble with these biblical exegeses, they get us nowhere, especially when people focus on a single issue such as the Eucharist, women priests, or guitars in Mass. We lose sight of the big picture, the fact that Christ formed a Church that he insured would be infallible in its teaching.

And of course, such a Church would be:

1. Continuous with the Apostles
2. Seen in the writings of the Early Church Fathers
3. Claim that without it there can be no salvation

It’s so obvious that Jesus built an actual Church rather than intended his teachings to be passed on just through a book, that any objective study of the relevant sources would show this.

And there are only two bodies that make these claims: the Catholic and the Orthodox churches. And surprise, they both believe that the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of our Lord!

Added to the fact that the Eastern churches split with us before the Lateran council of 1215, and yet have this (to you) pesky notion of literally receiving Christ, you don’t really have a leg to stand on, unless you can prove that your Church of Bible Apologist has been around since Jesus’ time.

Transubstantiation is merely a fancy word for saying that Jesus is wholly present in every way in the Sacrament, which only maintains the appearances of bread and wine. Whatever the differences between East and West, I’m sure they agree on this.

 

[Milliardo]

Again, absolute denial of reason and logic. If those church fathers really had a complete argument it wouldn’t be so hard to repudiate what I have set forth.

What–you mean that you had it all figured out? Rather amusing, considering that the Church Fathers were the ones taught by the Apostles personally, not you. All I’m saying though, is that this argument you’ve posted is nothing new. Read it, have debated over it time and again. Those who say it’s metaphorical will have to come up with something better than try to interpret the Bible using their own interpretation, which is never what the early Church taught. Wait–do you claim that what you know is what the early Church taught as well? Then that’s even a bigger mistake to make.

And why would I test your arguments? Compared to those who were taught by the Apostles, what do your arguments have? Nothing. I’m sorry, but like I said, I’ve seen your arguments before in one form or another. I’ve already made enough posts here and elsewhere regarding this issue, and such arguments like you make simply doesn’t stick. You will have to argue that with the early Christians then, all of whom believed in a Real Presence.

 

[kevb]

Kevb,

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

I’m not sure what you mean. This topic has nothing to do with you personally. My only opinion about you is that you’re a brother in Christ who’s yet to experience the fullness of what He desires for you, and I pray for your deep conversion.
That being said: How can you care less what a disciple of John has to say on this subject in the 1st century? I think it’s by far the most significant evidence on this thread. The fact that you could care less is not a satisfactory answer. I’m sure if one of our responses was “I don’t care”, you would consider the debate finished in your favor. I pray that the Holy Spirit will open your heart.

 

[gardenswithkids]

John, in your response to Jane Francis (as you directed me to) this point stood out to me:

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

Therein lies your problem. You are trying to use reason where you should use your faith. I see your profile says you’re Baptist. I know many good Baptists who claim vehemently that they interpret the Bible literally. But here you prove over and over that you interpret certain Bible verses symbolically when they seem otherwise illogical to you.

I see Jesus in the Eucharist through the eyes of faith, not reason. Catholics can try to present you with arguments from the early church, debate your “scriptural proofs” (which do not prove what you suggest they do), cite a variety of Church documents, etc. After all of that is said and done, ultimately it’s up to you to either take Jesus and the Bible at their words or not. I pray you find the faith to really believe.

 

[bibleapologist]

Catholig,

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

That is a pretty unfair statement don’t you think? In fact I have not dodged anything that has been thrown at me as yet. But, keep in mind, I am in an unfair debate (although willingly). There are many Catholic defenders against little 'ol me.

With each message I post there have been as many as 10 responses. I think I have more than proven my competency in this debate to hold my own, and I have more than proven myself not intimidated in the least.

you said,

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.

Why is it you esteem the postition of these men, and regard their intellect as infallible while denying your own conscience?

The Apostle Paul did not even ask that you…

1Ti 1:19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Milliardo,

All I’m saying though, is that this argument you’ve posted is nothing new. Read it, have debated over it time and again.

Then why as you are posting, do you not share some of your immense wisdom?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[gardenswithkids]

Why do you think it is irrelevant? How do you come to that conclusion?

Sorry; for my unclear use of the word “it”. I was asking why you (bibleapologist) thought it irrelevant that the Israelites ate the lamb that had been sacrificed. I view that as another foreshadowing of the Eucharist.

And you’re doing a great job responding to all the posts. I can barely keep up with responding to you alone!

 

[Milliardo]

Then why as you are posting, do you not share some of your immense wisdom?

John
www.gideonsword.net

One, because I’m not in a mood to go into debates right now. As I’ve said, I have posted about this time and again here and elsewhere. I want to go direct to the point though–why should we believe your notion over that of the early Fathers? In short, what makes you better than them? You’re more intellectual? They’re as much intellectual as you are, if not more. Please, give us one good reason why we should even discuss your points, and why they’re much better. You’ll have to convince us here that you’re actually any better than the early Christians who were taught by the Apostles themselves.

 

[bibleapologist]

gardenwithkids,

I see Jesus in the Eucharist through the eyes of faith, not reason. Catholics can try to present you with arguments from the early church, debate your “scriptural proofs” (which do not prove what you suggest they do), cite a variety of Church documents, etc. After all of that is said and done, ultimately it’s up to you to either take Jesus and the Bible at their words or not. I pray you find the faith to really believe.

Paul said we should…

2Co 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

Blind faith is dangerous.

2Pe 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

If your faith contradicts the scripture, then you are not “in the faith”. How will you know if your faith contradicts scripture unless you search the scripture and study to shew thyself approved.

If you cannot repudiate what I have set forth, it may be an indication that you should “examine yourself” by looking at what I have proposed. The article I referenced in the beginning of this thread.
John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

gardenwithkids,

And you’re doing a great job responding to all the posts. I can barely keep up with responding to you alone!

Thank you! When I started posting this afternoon I did not expect so many subscribers to this thread to be online!

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[gardenswithkids]

Please, give us one good reason why we should even discuss your points…

Because whatever reason brought the original poster here, we have a chance to share our faith lovingly with a brother in Christ who is separated from the Catholic Church. Because if he really does want to be a bibleapologist, then it can lead him to love Jesus in the Eucharist and the Catholic Church. Because whatever you do for the least of them, you do to Jesus. Okay, that’s three reasons. Now if you don’t want to debate him, don’t. But be kind if you choose to respond to him on his thread.

 

[Mr_Jullien]

Mr. Jullien,

Again, you have done nothing to repudiate my arguments. You only claim that I have misinterpreted scripture, and fail to offer any substantiation to prove your claim.

John
www.gideonsword.net

John, I read your arguments.

You tell me where, in this verse, Jesus is speaking of His Flesh in a spiritual and not a literal sense.

51I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day

“My flesh”, not my “Spiritual Flesh” and not “My symbolic flesh” – “My flesh”.

You can argue the point until the cows come home, but it doesn’t change Jesus’ very Words. It doesn’t get much plainer than that.
Again, you can’t twist the words of the text for your own convenience.
Jesus is extremely blunt, here. He leaves no room for argument.
There are no hidden implications in His Words.

Your statment and arguments don’t hold up under Sacred Scripure.

You only claim that I have misinterpreted scripture

Sorry, but it’s not a claim, as you say, when the words are there in **black **and white.
I have nothing else to prove. In fact, Sacred Scripture is all the back up and proof that I and everyone else needs.

Until tomorrow, John. I have a family in need of my attention for the rest of the evening.

PAX

In Christ,

Jullien

 

[gardenswithkids]

Thank you! When I started posting this afternoon I did not expect so many subscribers to this thread to be online!

Well… it’s rainy today. And your thread topic hits a sensitive area. Imagine, if you will for a moment, that you *did *interpret John 6 and 1 Corninthians literally and you did believe that the Eucharist was our Lord and Savior Jesus. Wouldn’t you want to defend Him too?