Jesus denied transubstantiation

[SHEMP]

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

Sounds like a reasonable interpretation for the “Bibleapologist Church”. The Baptists, Evangelicals, Lutherans, Methodists, etc all have their interpretations. My friend Bob has his own interpretation. You might consider the “Bob Church”. I will continue to stick with the interpretation of The Catholic Church.

 

[Truthstalker]

Church Militant,

Explain to me the interpretation of scripture, or the logic behind why you trust the ECF.

Protestants are reinventing the wheel all the time. They start with Scripture. Then they interpret it. Then they write creeds to sort out varying interpretations. Then they interpret Bible+creed+interpretation, all the while insisting they lean on the Bible alone as authoritative, except when pressed, and then they will admit they look at the Bible as the trump card but lean on tradition.

The ECF interpreted Scripture better than we can for a number of reasons. They were closer culturally to the source. They knew, in some cases, the apostles personally. They were familiar with discussions and much of their material was written to clarify what had been talked about and discussed, sometimes for several generations, sometimes for only one.

Protestants do not hesitate to pick up a Bible dictionary or encyclopedia for an authoritative statement on what the Bible means, even when that source has been written 1900 years after the events, but balk at considering the ECF as authoritative.
!

Again, where is YOUR argument. If you really understood what the early Church fathers wrote and explicated, you would have no problem explaining that to me.

You beg the question with this one. You imply he does not understand. He is also having trouble explaining it to you, but why is that automatically his fault? The assumption here seems to be that the ECF are valid only when they agree with you, and if they don’t, then they are invalid or misunderstood. !

I don’t understand how you can say that, and not give an opposing side to what I have proposed. All I see from your posts are that you stand by the CF on whatever they say.

I I think you are operating out of a philosophical framework that was not shared either by Jesus or the ECF. The Catholic Church has been safeguarded in its interpretation. For you to use Scripture alone and ignore equally valid Tradition is analogous to hopping when you should be running. No one stands by the CF in everything - some were contradictory, which is why they Church has painstakingly researched and considered and arrived at the decisions on who was right and who wrong, for very good reasons. Your approach lacks this and is therefore inherently incorrect. !

John
www.gideonsword.net

I would like to start threads focusing on different passages and ECF - it is way too easy to wander around. This topic is very broad and the particulars need to be examined.

 

[The_Catholic]

Actualy John 6:63 perfectly harmonizes with the Real Presence. Christ makes a literal comparison of Himself accending into Heaven. How would the Jews comprehend that? Both the Real Presence and the Accension are difficult to grasp with the natural mind. And that’s why He says in verse 64 “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” The Holy Spirit has to give us life and eyes to see spiritual things and ears to understand spiritual things of God. This makes perfect sense and harmonizes with the entire doctrine. Why can’t you see it?

Furthermore (I mean no disrespect) all of your oppositions against the Real Presence have been dealt with thousands of time in the past. So why are you coming on this forum to try and “prove” the Catholic Church wrong? Do you think the Church is going to say “I never saw it like that before. You know what he’s right!” I believe not.

It’s fine to come on and disagree with the Church’s doctrines but from all of your posts you’re acting like you are here to teach us.

To me, in the end it’s all pointless because everyone sees and interprets Scripture differently.

Blessings in Christ

 

[Truthstalker]

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.
]

Actually, as was pointed out, it’s not controversial at all. It is settled.

 

[The_Catholic]

sabda,

Those particular Jews were absolutely seeking a sign from Jesus. That is why Jesus told them…

Assuming that if He would ascend up to heaven again, it would prove to them that He came down from heaven as he previously asserted.

John
www.gideonsword.net]

Correct. But would the Jews still believe Him? Or would they think it was another one of Satan’s tricks?

 

[Sabda]

Quote:
Joh 6:62 [What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

Assuming that if He would ascend up to heaven again, it would prove to them that He came down from heaven as he previously asserted.

The fact is it would not have mattered if He had ascended to heaven right in front of them. They would still refuse to accept His words when He said “my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink”. They WERE given signs but those signs were not enough for them to accept Jesus’ words. That’s why they left and why Jesus did not call them back. He had already given them plenty of signs. Yes, this is a very hard teaching for a lot of people. They look at this and think cannibalism. As we know that is very repulsive to us as humans. But what happens in the Eucharist is not cannibalism. It’s receiving the body, blood, soul, AND divinity of our RISEN Lord.

quote from The Catholic:
Or would they think it was another one of Satan’s tricks?

As we see from Scripture, that’s exactly what some of the Jews believed.

 

[bibleapologist]

The Catholic,

To me, in the end it’s all pointless because everyone sees and interprets Scripture differently.

Yes, it does seem that way. Although I don’t agree with you that it’s all pointless in the end.

Truth is not subjective, it is our positions relative to truth that is subjective. None of us see the truth in it’s fulness, I believe primarily because we could not handle it.

1Co 8:2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

But it is good that we discuss these discrepancies, even if it is rehashing old debates, because it persuades us to look at the truth more closely, and draws us closer to God.

We will all be in one accord with the truth one day, and I believe we will all be a little embarrassed by what we thought was absolute truth regarding certain doctrines.

1Co 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[JaneFrances]

Jane Francis,

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

Actually, no you haven’t.

You have given ample Scripture, to be sure. However, each time you quoted Sacred Scripture you have told us what you believe it says. You have not supported your beliefs beyond your own interpretation.

You said that Scripture is easy to discern. I refuted it with a quotation from St. Peter. You did not respond in kind.

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

Actually, I provided the direct texts from Scripture.

I am not sure what you are reading, but I never said I believe “x,y,z” because “this is what the Catholic Church teaches.” I never even quoted the Catechism here. What are you talking about?

You are avoiding the argument.

Hardly, sir.

And BTW, misinterpreting 1 Tim. 3:15.

Then, why don’t you tell us what St. Paul means when he calls the Church “the pillar and bullwark of truth.”

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

Good thing, it’s not my only arguement, then, eh?

If you will review. . .I have provided Scritpural texts. Instead of providing scholarly exegesis, you offer your personal opinion.

I have provided Early Church quotations. Instead of responding to the specific quotations, you claim them to be useless.

I think we are all getting the picture that you do not accept anything that doesn’t fit your personal interpetation.

So are you saying that Eve actually “ate” damnation… or did she eat “unto” herself damnation.

Your question was:

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

?

I responded:

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.

The transitive verb “to manifest” means “to make evident.” My meaning pertained to this definition of the word, not the preposition “unto.”

To be clear, God’s solemn power is made manifest (is evidenced) in His ability to exert justice and mercy through any means He wills.

We believe that God LITERALLY forbid disobedience to His commands. We believe that our first parents LITERALLY disobeyed. We believe that they LITERALLY experienced the manifested justice of God prompted by their disobedience.

We believe that God LITERALLY forbids reception of the Eucharist to anyone who does not believe it is his Body and Blood. We believe that if we do so, we are LITERALLY disobeying Him. We believe that we will LITERALLY experience the manifested justice of God prompted by our disobedience.

I hope that clears it up for you.

Damnation is the judgment of God upon disobedience, not a literal object that would be eaten.

Of course. You misunderstood my point entirely.

Like I previously stated… Paul, was stating to drink unworthily (in unbelief) brings about damnation.

“In unbelief” of what exactly?

Not that one could actually “drink” damnation. He said “drinketh damnation to himself”.

Fear not, I do not believe that when I receive my Lord in the cup I am drinking damnation. I believe, as Scripture hold that when I receive the cup unworthily, I am judged accordingly.

You seem to be confused. . .St. Paul didn’t speak English. He didn’t say “drinketh” at all.

First of all let’s play on the same field, the KJV says

I don’t play on that field. . .neither did Jesus, his holy Apostles, the Early Church Fathers, etc.

not that we should “recognize” the Lord’s body, but “discern” it.

Okay, we’ll use your word. . .

The word discern is a transitive verb that means to be able to tell the difference between two or more things.

Okay. . .

Discern here is translated fromt the Greek word “Diakrino” which means to "seperate thoroughly, or discriminate.

Hey, this is just like the father in My Big Fat Greek Wedding. . .“give me a word, any word, and I will prove it is from the Greek!”

continue. . .

 

[JaneFrances]

. . .continued

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”.

Actually, no. In verse 29, when read plainly, he says:

For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. (NIV)

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. (KJV)

For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.(NASB)

For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself. (NAB)

There is no mention of symbolism here. In fact there is no mention of symbolism anywhere in this discourse.

You are assuming what you can not prove.

One does not come unworthily to a mere symbol. We can only be unworthy of our Savior.

Meaning, damnation. Can you actually dispense damnation to someone in a liquid?

No you can not. Christ blood is dispensed. Damnation/judgment is the result of our unworthy reception, as the text reads.

I think you do know what I mean, because you tried to refute with the Adam and Eve analogy.

Nope, I still don’t know what you mean by this:

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

Then, just give us the tedious and routine “easy” answers.

 

[Church_Militant]

Church Militant,

Explain to me the interpretation of scripture, or the logic behind why you trust the ECF.

There’s little to explain…I’ve done this many times before, but especially in posts 1, 2, 4, and 20 of this thread

As for why I trust the ECF, that should need no explanation. If St. Ignatius of Antioch was discipled by St. John the apostle and then became a bishop in the early church and gave his life for what he believed and wrote what I have quoted to you concerning the Eucharist, then to ask me why I choose his teaching over your new wind of doctrine, seems self evident (to me). Your position was not held by the apostles, is not found in the plain literal text of the Word of God and so is in error. No Christians held your belief prior to the “reformation” and I believe that they had no choice but to invent a new doctrine because they knew that they no longer had a valid priesthood, and so had lost the capacity to celebrate a valid Eucharist. So then they had to create this error to throw dust in the air and convice their followers that it didn’t matter or they’d soon come home to the real Christian teachings and the Eucharist.

This is the way that the mind of a carnal man (and I believe they went carnal) works and in the light of the Word of God it’s about all that makes and sense at all.

Again, where is YOUR argument. If you really understood what the early Church fathers wrote and explicated, you would have no problem explaining that to me.

Done…

I don’t understand how you can say that, and not give an opposing side to what I have proposed. All I see from your posts are that you stand by the CF on whatever they say.

Think about it John…you’re not dumb. Who’s closer to source? The ECF were there and we have verifiable text from an apostolic disciple that plainly tells us that rejecting (what later became known as) transubstantiation is heresy that leads to death and should be avoided accordingly.

Jesus in no way denied the Eucharist.

As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 (“I am the door”) and John 15:1 (“I am the true vine”). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, “I am the bread of life.” “I am the door” and “I am the vine” make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).

He continues: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor.

LINK

To steal a phrase from the non-Catholics I used to go to church with.

“God says it in His word.
I believe it in my heart.
That settles it…
Forever.”

The ECF simply affirm what the New Testament already says and assure that we do mot err in our own understanding of it.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

 

[JaneFrances]

Jane_Frances,

Then you don’t understand simple sentence structure.

Obviously, those graduate level Grammar courses didn’t stick. I apologize.

The word “discernment” is as I stated a transitive verb… which will reference an “object”. Let’s look at the verse again…

Actually, and this may just be me being particular, but the word “discernment” isn’t a verb at all.

But let’s go ahead and look at the verse anyway!

For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. (NIV)

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. (KJV)

For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.(NASB)

For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. (NAB)

Of course, because you are aware of the Greek, you realize that none of these English translations are entirely accurate. They are awkward and loose.

In any case, since neither of us are Greek scholars, it does not profit this discussion to dwell too much on it. Suffice it to say, Scripture and Greek scholars far more educated than present company have concluded that for all intensive purposes the words “discern” and “recognize” are to be used interchangably in this passage.

There are subtle linguistic differences, to be sure, but neither “discern” nor “recognize” is perfectly representative of the original text. So, we must make do. . .

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

I’m sorry if I’m being tedious and routine, but I don’t understand your point here.

I am well aware of the English grammatical parts of speech. I am concerned, however, that you are using the particularity of usage as a crutch for an arguement that you can not make.

Perhaps you could condescend to explain further?

As I understand it, the subject is “he”, the verb is “eat/drink”, and the direct object is “the Lord’s Body.”

Thus, he who eats and drinks without discerning/recognizing the Lord’s body, does so at risk of damnation/judgment.

 

[DCD]

Little Mary,

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

John
www.gideonsword.net

John,

It seems that the Spirit of God is teaching his children all things and we do not even have to go to God’s Word anymore just go to the yellow pages and pick the flavor of the month. I am sure they are all comparing spirtual things with spirtual it just so happens that on their corner of downtown they have got it right and the other 32,999 denominations and The Catholic Church in those same towns came to the wrong conclusions. So what brand of salvation are we selling today? Well let me search my inner self and see what kind of hideous vices I want to live out since I have such a wide gammit to choose from. Okay honey spin the phonebook see where my finger lands.

I pray that they may be one sorry Jesus

Amazing conclusions you have come to John.

By the grace of God Roman Catholic I am not worthy to recieve you but only say the word and I shall be healed.

Ave Maria

 

[StHilarious]

A question:

Was Jesus at the last supper consuming his own flesh?

Was Jesus drinking his own blood?

Why accepted the apostles this practice, when the drinking of blood was forbiden in Leviticus?

I am so confused.

 

[Montalban]

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

Already dealt with this at
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=109128
See post 3 onwards.

Here’s part of the evidence for the early church (not “Catholic” as in RCC)

St. Ignatius of Antioch
Epistle to the Smyrnaeans
6:2 But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us, how that they are contrary to the mind of God. They have no care for love, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty. They abstain from Eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they allow not that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up.
earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-lightfoot.html

We take in the bread because it is no longer mere bread…
Epistle to the Ephesians
20:2 especially if the Lord should reveal aught to me. Assemble yourselves together in common, every one of you severally, man by man, in grace, in one faith and one Jesus Christ, who after the flesh was of David’s race, who is Son of Man and Son of God, to the end that ye may obey the bishop and presbytery without distraction of mind; breaking one bread, which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote that we should not die but live for ever in Jesus Christ.
earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-lightfoot.html

Justin Martyr, in his First Apology writes…
“CHAPTER LXVI – OF THE EUCHARIST.
And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.”
earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html
See also CHAP. VIII of
TERTULLIAN
ON THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH.
earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian16.html

The early church was observed by pagans who thought that the Christian church were practicing cannibalism BECAUSE the Christians were partaking of the real flesh and blood of Christ…
(see the article “Why Early Christians Were So Despised” at gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps139.shtml)

 

[Montalban]

A question:

Actually you ask three. Basic maths

Was Jesus at the last supper consuming his own flesh?

Was Jesus drinking his own blood?

He was showing us the way to partake in His divine nature.
Though I recognise that in Matthew 26, Mark 14, & Luke 22 He offers the Body and Blood, it doesn’t say He partakes of it Himself.

Why accepted the apostles this practice, when the drinking of blood was forbiden in Leviticus?

I am so confused.

Different sort of ‘flesh’ and ‘blood’

Notice He says it’s a new covnenant

 

[Holly3278]

Jesus is present in the Eucharist and He taught this as well!

 

[Odell]

Odell,
Here is an interesting point to discuss. I didn’t say God can’t leave Heaven… In fact He is everywhere at all times… that is what Omnipresent means.

What I said was, Jesus (the glorified body) was in heaven. My substantiation for saying this from the scripture…

thats nice but catholics participate of the Lambs supper that is taken place in heaven. my substantiation for saying this from scipture…

John was call up in spirit on the Lords day and saw a lamb as if slain.

and we will partake of the lambs supper

its all there in Revelations.

MASS IS HEAVEN ON EARTH!

 

[corvidae]

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.

www.gideonsword.net

It sounds like a good place to start. If there is only one reference to the Lord’s body, it does not have to be either or, it can be both!
Catholic’s do not believe that there is a seperate Body of Christ in the Eucharist, we believe it is the one and the same Body of Christ that hung on the cross. We believe it is a partaking in the Same “actual” body of Christ. It does not have to be either or, it can be one and both. The “bread” of the Eucharist is the actual body of Jesus that hung on the cross.

A lone Raven

 

[dumspirospero]

On the contrary…the burden of proof lies on you.

Ceasar,

I’ll let you prove that to me.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[The_Catholic]

The Catholic,

Yes, it does seem that way. Although I don’t agree with you that it’s all pointless in the end.

Truth is not subjective, it is our positions relative to truth that is subjective. None of us see the truth in it’s fulness, I believe primarily because we could not handle it.

But it is good that we discuss these discrepancies, even if it is rehashing old debates, because it persuades us to look at the truth more closely, and draws us closer to God.

We will all be in one accord with the truth one day, and I believe we will all be a little embarrassed by what we thought was absolute truth regarding certain doctrines.

Hello Bible Apologist.

I can agree with you on your last words. One day we will all be shown the fullness of Truth. That is why we all should be humble with our beliefs and not prideful. Let’s just say that when I meet Christ (in a state of repented sin I pray) and He tells me that Holy Communion was only symbolic. Well praise the Lord! Embaressed though? I don’t believe so because I strive to be humble in my beliefs. I want Truth NOT pride. This is why I believe that anyone, no matter what Church they belong to, or if they’re Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, etc., as long as they’re seeking the Truth to the best of their knowledge, then they have the promise of Eternal Salvation.

When I said pointless I didn’t mean fruitless. I meant that for some they come on this forum caring not what Catholics have to say but they’re here only to “prove” the Church wrong. Usualy from the way they post their words it’s obvious they’re being prideful. I can understand why some people don’t believe in the Real Presence, I used to deny it when I was a non-denominational Christian, but to be shown the WHYS why Catholics believe it and continue to agrue and strive on, over and over again then it IS pointless because they’re not here to learn but to “prove” the Catholic Church wrong. It saddens me.

I go on other Protestant Christian forums but I never jump in to prove them wrong when they speak about Solo Scriptua, even though I do not believe it. And if I did I wouldn’t contiue post after post after post as you are doing here. You have heard the resons for our beliefs and you have challenged them here, but you just continue to do that. What are you getting at? The last words on the post? Or just sticking around to argue pointlessly, because that is pointless. And God will not work through pride.

I don’t condem you for your beliefs. You see it your way and the Church sees it differently. But now this thread is going around in circles.