Jesus denied transubstantiation

[Milliardo]

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.

I’m as kind as I should; however, I want to know why he seems to think he had it all figured out. At length, I want to show him that if there’s any truth to his notion, then it has to stack up first with what the early Church believed in. As St. John of the Cross said, “Should I misunderstand or be mistaken at some point, whether I deduce it from Scripture or not, I will not be intending to deviate from the true meaning of Sacred Scripture or from the doctrine of our Holy Mother the Catholic Church. Should there be a mistake, I submit entirely to the Church.” In other words, is he deducing this based on his own interpretation then? If so, what makes him better then than the early Fathers, and what makes his notion better than the notions of others? I think my whole point is that we’ve gone through all this before, and this is just another attempt to debunk Catholic teaching, which is ultimately bound to fail.

 

[Magicsilence]

This argument is going nowhere.

Currently there are:

1. The position that Christ and the early Church believed in the Eucharist.
2. The position that Christ and the early Church did not believe in the Eucharist.

Since both positions are being defended, the easiest method of solving this is to see what was said by Early Church Fathers.

See here:

staycatholic.com/ecf_the_real_presence.htm

And more specifically, as I have already posted once:

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]).

Its as easy as that.

Peace and God Bless in Christ Jesus.*

 

[Milliardo]

This argument is going nowhere.

Currently there are:

1. The position that Christ and the early Church believed in the Eucharist.
2. The position that Christ and the early Church did not believe in the Eucharist.

Since both positions are being defended, the easiest method of solving this is to see what was said by Early Church Fathers.

See here:

staycatholic.com/ecf_the_real_presence.htm

And more specifically, as I have already posted once:

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]).

Its as easy as that.

Peace and God Bless in Christ Jesus.

Thank you. That is my whole point–what is said by the Early Church Fathers regarding this matter? Like I said, my faith is their faith, and that is the faith of the Church.

 

[kevb]

Catholig,

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.

John
www.gideonsword.net

In fact you have dodged the most convincing statement, as I mentioned before post #24 by ChurchMIlitant to which you replied that you cared less. And as I said before in post #70, if anyone here who opposes your views would have responded with “I don’t care” to any evidence you presented, you’d have won this debate.
I do agree that you are outnumbered and I commend you for your efforts, but I don’t see how you consider this debate finished until you have addressed the quote by Ignatius of Antioch: disciple of an Apostle. I’ll quote it again for you:

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. (see #24 for whole quote).

Hope Church Militant doesn’t mind me reinforcing his points.

 

[bibleapologist]

gardenwithkids,

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?

Absolutely! I don’t judge anyone on this post for defending what they believe to be the gospel. I fully expected the participation this thread has received.

By the way, it is a pleasure to discuss this topic with you in particular. I perceive a real sense of charity in your posts.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

magicsilence,

Since both positions are being defended, the easiest method of solving this is to see what was said by Early Church Fathers.

That is fine for the Catholics on this thread, as the Early Catholic Church Fathers are your authority. I defend the Bible, if Justin Martyr or anyone else opposed that… they oppose Christ.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Pax]

bibleapologist,

I find your arguments both in the article and on this thread to be completely unconvincing.

You quoted 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.”

Your commentary then follows with this:

" ’ The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life’ has a two-fold meaning. First, Jesus was telling the Jews that this teaching was a spiritual teaching, and to believe this teaching and Him who taught it will lead to eternal life. But, the second and more significant meaning was that the very words Jesus had been speaking to them all along were spirit and life… He had been feeding them all along! The Jews, had they believed would have been fed throughout this entire lesson, because the very words that came from Jesus’ were spiritually edifying, and life giving for those who believe."

Please be advised that “spiritual” does not mean “symbolic” and I challenge you to find places in scripture where the two words are used inter-changeably. Jesus was not telling them by his words that this was simply a spiritual teaching. Other’s have already pointed out the straight forward and graphic nature of the Lord’s presentation. Jesus knew which of the disciples did not believe his words. His words are the words of eternal life. His words are spirit and life. When Jesus says that the “flesh availeth nothing” he is not speaking of his own flesh. Instead he is speaking of “human effort.”

The New Living Translation of the bible (a non-catholic source) rightly translates verse 63 this way:

“The Spirit alone gives eternal life. Human effort accomplishes nothing…”

Our listening to Jesus cannot be done in a fleshy manner. We must believe him because he said it. His words are spirit and life. His words were “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.”

Jesus means exactly what he says but we are unable to believe what he says if we listen only with human ears and intellect. Jesus tells us in verse 44 that “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” No one will believe what Jesus says in the discourse on the bread of life without grace. Human effort is to no avail.

 

[Milliardo]

magicsilence,

That is fine for the Catholics on this thread, as the Early Catholic Church Fathers are your authority. I defend the Bible, if Justin Martyr or anyone else opposed that… they oppose Christ.

John
www.gideonsword.net

I can tell you right now that the early Fathers never opposed Christ, and have in fact died for Him in defense of the faith. That shows how little you know of the early Fathers. I will ask thus: what makes your interpretation better than theirs?

 

[sara888]

**If Christ is all around us and with us, why would it be incomprehensible for him to be present in the Eurcharist.

“This is my blood , This is my Body, .”

Jan.**

 

[adrift]

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

Interesting sentence structure. My husband is a mathametition and he would have a ball with your if than statement.
If you are right than the early Chruch teaching transubstantiation is illogical. Now turn it around if the early Church taught transubstantiation than you are wrong.

I know why you are trying hard to back paddle.

One more point Jesus said this IS my body and this IS my blood.
I do not know if you answered the question why when the Apostles were confused and many were leaving Jesus didn’t correct their misunderstanding.

But you covered yourself, if they did teach it it wasn’t true.

 

[bibleapologist]

kevb,

In fact you have dodged the most convincing statement, as I mentioned before post #24 by ChurchMIlitant to which you replied that you cared less. And as I said before in post #70, if anyone here who opposes your views would have responded with “I don’t care” to any evidence you presented, you’d have won this debate.

I did not dodge the point given by Church Militant when he quoted Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius’ apologies were not included in the canon of scripture so why should I consider his exposition on the “eucharist”.

I could have quoted many Baptist leaders who have written about the ordinance of the Lord’s supper… but I didn’t because what would that do to present of convincing argument to Catholics?

Instead I have reasoned with you pertaining to the teachings of Christ, and I have rightly divided the word of truth concerning this topic.

The only thing that I can say about Ignatius’ apology is… He was wrong… consult my previous posts.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[kevb]

magicsilence,

That is fine for the Catholics on this thread, as the Early Catholic Church Fathers are your authority. I defend the Bible, if Justin Martyr or anyone else opposed that… they oppose Christ.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Do you mean there are some other Early Church Fathers that you’ve been referring to besides those who followed the Apostles? These are not merely fathers of the Catholic tradition… they were the first Christians in the 1st century. How can you disregard what they write as being for Catholics only?

 

[Pax]

magicsilence,

That is fine for the Catholics on this thread, as the Early Catholic Church Fathers are your authority. I defend the Bible, if Justin Martyr or anyone else opposed that… they oppose Christ.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Excuse me, but the ECF’s defended the truth of scripture and the faith. Yours is a recent interpretation of the bible that is an error. You cannot ignore what the early church believed by claiming that you have a superior understanding of scripture. The ECF’s such as St. Ignatius of Antioch were directly instructed by an apostle. You have not been instructed by one of the apostles. You read scripture and come to a conclusion different than Ignatius and everyone else in the early church. You then claim that you are right in your interpretation even though the alternative explanation is not only more plausible but is clearly the most logical based on the text of scripture and happens to be exactly what an ECF received directly from an apostle. This is quite unbelievable.

 

[Magicsilence]

magicsilence,

That is fine for the Catholics on this thread, as the Early Catholic Church Fathers are your authority. I defend the Bible, if Justin Martyr or anyone else opposed that… they oppose Christ.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Peace in Christ Jesus.

The bible is an inspired collection of books that relate to the life of Christ (and the apostles), and His teachings (and those of the Church).

Also, if you defend the bible, then you are defending your interpretation of it, as Im sure you will agree. Therefore, those who disagree with you are not opposing Christ, only you.

The Early Church Fathers are not our authority, they are simply the early Christians.

The Church is our authority, which includes Tradition and “our” interpretation of Holy Scipture. But, since you reject both of these sources, I was giving you another source, that of what the early Christians believed.

Do you believe that Christ taught people on earth and that these people wrote about Him and their experience? Im sure you do.

Well, the Early Church Fathers are those who were taught by the apostles, and then those ECF’s who taught others.

Thats all there is to it.

Therefore my quote from Justin Martyr still stands.

Peace and God Bless in Christ Jesus.

 

[Milliardo]

I did not dodge the point given by Church Militant when he quoted Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius’ apologies were not included in the canon of scripture so why should I consider his exposition on the “eucharist”.

For early Christians, the early Fathers’ words carried as much weight as those made by the Apostles. Many of the works of the early Fathers were considered Scripture before Hippo and Carthage, when the canon as we know now were ratified. Given that small background then, it is not surprising why Catholics and Orthodox can quote the early Fathers without being contradicted, because we know that what they taught is what the Apostles taught, and this is what the early Church admits without doubt.

The only thing that I can say about Ignatius’ apology is… He was wrong… consult my previous posts.

Again, what makes your notion better than theirs? You have yet to convince us why your points are even worth considering in the first place.

 

[valient_Lucy]

I don’t see anywhere in the article where you even claim that Jesus denied transubstantiation. You give His words another meaning, but all you are actually refuting is the (rather silly) RC argument that Jesus’ words *must *be referring to transubstantiation.

And I find it ironic that your signature says “intellectualism is over-rated” when your theology is so radically intellectualist. You appear to define saving faith as a change in one’s thinking about justification (an intellectualized definition if I ever heard one), and you reduce the meaning of Jesus’ mystical language to simply hearing His words. No Christians I know of deny that this is one level of what it means to feed on Christ, so insofar as you’re making a valid point, the point is completely uncontroversial. But you don’t seem able to consider the possibility that actual physical reception of the Eucharist may also be intended in John 6. What is this but sheer intellectualism? For you Jesus is received by the mind only. For orthodox Christians Jesus is received by the whole person.

Edwin

Good answer.

 

[LIMolly0721]

bibleapologist,
Don’t forget, Jesus said in John Ch 6: 51, that the bread which He will give for the life of the world is His flesh. When did He give His flesh for the life of the world? ***On the cross. ***Do you take that symbolically? If you interpret that Jesus is speaking symbolically when He says that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, then you must also conclude that Jesus’ death on the cross was symbolic. the bread IS the flesh He will give for the life of the world!!!
John Martignoni put it best:
“Jesus is clearly talking about the flesh that He gave for the life of the world…He did that on the cross. Those who believe He is talking symbolically here in John 6, have a real problem when it comes to John 6:51. Did Jesus give His real flesh and blood for the life of the world, or was it only His symbolic flesh and blood?” www.biblechristiansociety.com
bibleapologist, I will pray that you will not let our human limitations prevent you from believing in the Holy Eucharist. It is a beautiful gift from Jesus Christ.

 

[kevb]

kevb,

I did not dodge the point given by Church Militant when he quoted Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius’ apologies were not included in the canon of scripture so why should I consider his exposition on the “eucharist”.

I could have quoted many Baptist leaders who have written about the ordinance of the Lord’s supper… but I didn’t because what would that do to present of convincing argument to Catholics?

Instead I have reasoned with you pertaining to the teachings of Christ, and I have rightly divided the word of truth concerning this topic.

The only thing that I can say about Ignatius’ apology is… He was wrong… consult my previous posts.

John
www.gideonsword.net

So Ignatius must be wrong, because his words aren’t in the Bible? Are you saying that he was deliberately trying to deceive Christ’s first followers?

 

[ferdie]

quote=bibleapologist;1517327]magicsilence,

That is fine for the Catholics on this thread, as the Early Catholic Church Fathers are your authority. I defend the Bible, if Justin Martyr or anyone else opposed that… they oppose Christ.

John
www.gideonsword.net

But the early church fathers were defending Christ and His teachings against the heretics of their time. **If **St. Justin Martyr and the early church fathers believed in the symbolic meaning of John 6, they would have defended it left and right.

It is just so perplexing that people so disconnected with the early church by thousands of years get it right than the disciples of the Apostles. And the basis of their argument is the bible that the Apostles wrote. I would imagine that the disciples of the Apostles would have asked them the meaning their writtings.

The Early church Fathers had the Apostles to ask when they did not understand some teachings, who do you have? Remember that some of the Apostles wrote the bible.

 

[bibleapologist]

adrift,

I know why you are trying hard to back paddle.

One more point Jesus said this IS my body and this IS my blood.
I do not know if you answered the question why when the Apostles were confused and many were leaving Jesus didn’t correct their misunderstanding.

I don’t see where I am back paddling. Would you care to enlighten some of us to my intentions?

Actually, I am glad you brought that point up about the Jews who left Jesus after they were offended.

I have been waiting for someone to bring that up!

Remember, my whole argument is that some of those Jews did not believe, and Jesus rather than giving in to their unbelief and giving them the magnificent sign they so earnestly asked for, He chose to use the strong language of John 6:53-56 to show them the end of their disbelief.

Which was…

Joh 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

and Jesus responded by affirming that some of them were in unbelief…

Joh 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.
Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

At that time some of them left Him…

Joh 6:66 From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

After Jesus asked the other Apostles if they would leave too. And Peter answered Jesus with…

Joh 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Peter figured it out, not because it was hard to understand, but because he believed. It was not about eating flesh and drinking blood; but it was about the “words of eternal life”.

In the middle of the article I referenced I said…

Now, in verse 52 we see as Jesus did, that some of the Jews still did not understand what Jesus was teaching; again, that He is the “bread of life”, which is in no way equivalent to ‘sustenance’ that edifies the physical body through the digestive system, but that spiritual meat which quickens the ‘spirit’ to eternal life.

This teaching from Jesus cannot contradict any other teaching from Jesus or the Word of God. As it cannot contradict this one…

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Deut. 8:3)

Peter’s affirmation that Jesus had the “words of eternal life” was not only an indication of His Diety, but also that He was the “bread of life” He was claiming to be. Not to the satisfying of the flesh and it’s needs, but to the “quickening of the spirit”. Jesus himself affirmed this in John 6:63…

Joh 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.

This is the verse I was hoping to reach in our debate. Jesus in this verse (not taken out of it’s context) denies transubstantiation.

John
www.gideonsword.net