Jesus denied transubstantiation

[The_Catholic]

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))

Awesome post! Besides Holy Scripture, how could you be any clearer from what the early Church believed. Praise God!

 

[NotWorthy]

I’d still like to see the first Church Writing that claimed that John 6 was purely symbolic.

 

[bibleapologist]

Jane Frances,

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.

I would rather stay away from the Greek too. I only use it to show definitions and tenses of the english… I’m not one of those “only the Greek is inspired people”.

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?

1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

verse 28 is a complex sentence in which the “independent clause” is “let a man examine himself”. There are two “subordinate clauses” which refer back to the “independent clause”… the "subordinate clauses are “eat of that bread”, and “drink of that cup”. In light of the sentence structure Paul is, in this sentence, asking that a man “examine himself” which “eating” and “drinking” is dependent upon.

Verse 29 is a complex sentence in which there are two independent clauses of equal syntactic importance “he eateth and drinketh unworthily”, and “he eateth and drinketh damnation to himself”. The dependent clause of this sentence is “not discerning the Lord’s body”.

Though the observation of verse 29’s sentence structure does nothing to prove my claim by itself, I would ask you to look at the dependent clause of verse 29 “not discerning the Lord’s body”, and see that it is dependent upon the two independent clauses of that sentence… which are qualified by verse 28… and the independent clause of that verse “let a man examine himself”.

The dependent clause of verse 29, although dependent upon the independent clauses of that same sentence, is qualified through the independent clauses of verse 29 by the independent clause of verse 28.

Therefore, the discernment of the Lord’s body was not directed by Paul to the “eating and drinking” but to the “examining of one’s self”.

Conclusion: If a person eats and drinks of the wine and bread, without examining himself, and thereby discerning the Lord’s body and recognizing that He has been born-again (and in Christ as a member of His body)… it is sin. Why? because anything not done in faith is sin.

Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.

Does that mean that eating and drinking unworthily will send a person to hell? Not necessarily, if they are eating and drinking unworthily (not saved) they are already condemned.

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Discernment of the Lord’s body comes from examining yourself.

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?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

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.

I appreciate you comment. And I do understand the Catholic teaching behind this.

There have only been two people in the New Testament, after Christ ascended, that have actually been transferred to heaven in the body…

1. Paul himself (2 Cor. 12:2-7).
2. The Apostle John (Rev. 1:10-18)

All Christians (saved people) are a member of the body of Christ, and since Christ sits at the right hand of the Father, we also (spiritually) sit at God’s right hand.

We Christians live in heaven already because we have been born again (not of flesh and blood, but of the Spirit). But our bodies do not leave this earthly plane unless God sees fit to translate us (like Paul and John) according to His purposes.

Likewise, Christ does not come down from heaven in the body until He comes in the clouds in all His glory. (Mark 13:26)

And His body doesn’t return to earth often to occupy the elements of the eucharist. His is still is heaven, in the holy of holies as an offering for your sin.

Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, [which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

The only way to partake of the body of Christ, is to believe and be saved.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

The Catholic,

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.

That is not what Jesus, or the Apostles taught. On the contrary, over and over again they rejected false teaching, warned sinners of hell and damnation, and proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ…

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is not hard to understand, I have written an article to explain it simply if you care to read it.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[sara888]

**bIbleapologist said:

The only way to partake of the body of Christ, is to believe and be saved.**

**
Just believe… thats it… Dont we have to adhere to the commandments of Christ and partake in communion as Christ requested Christians to do for rememberance and the forgivness of sins. Anyone can fall from grace

.Romans 11:20-22 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: [21] For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

[22] Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also (shalt be cut off.)

If this is not a scriptural example of losing one’s salvation then I don’t know what is! If it’s not an example, then what does it mean?

“If you love me, you keep my commandments.”

However, I am off topic here.

Jan**

 

[Magicsilence]

The only way to partake of the body of Christ, is to believe and be saved.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Hi John.

If you believe this is what Christ taught.

Then how do you feel about the quotes we have posted from the Early Church Fathers which say the opposite?

Do you, in fact, have a quote from the ECF’s supporting your position?

Peace and God Bless.

 

[Truthstalker]

Bibleapologist,

I’ve noticed you have apparently replied to nothing I have posted on this thread or another thread. Odd.

I’m wondering: if you don’t believe the ECF, because you only believe Scripture, then why should we, taking your example, listen to anything you have to say, because what you say is not Scripture? Are you a better authority for the Bible than the ECF are?

 

[corvidae]

I have to ask you bible apologist,

What would it take to make you question your own teaching.

Would it take Jesus himself saying that His Flesh is the living bread come down from heaven?

Wait, He said that.

Would it take Paul saying that if someone doesn’t believe this, they are wrong, and are guilty of sin if they accept this “Bread” and “Wine” without discerning it is Christ body?

Wait, He said that too.

So what would it take. You take figuratively what looks quite literal, and even at one point, Our Lord went out of His way to say it is a REAL teaching, not a metaphor or a parable.

Every parable is accompanied by an explanation, but the only explanation offered for this is, “will you leave me as well?”

So I ask you, what will it take for you to question your own teachings, or are your teachings above question, even for yourself?

A lone Raven

 

[Milliardo]

Bibleapologist,

I’ve noticed you have apparently replied to nothing I have posted on this thread or another thread. Odd.

I’m wondering: if you don’t believe the ECF, because you only believe Scripture, then why should we, taking your example, listen to anything you have to say, because what you say is not Scripture? Are you a better authority for the Bible than the ECF are?

I’ve been pointing this out as well; please convince us that you have it better than the Early Church Fathers who were taught by the Apostles themselves. That’s all I’m asking: why should we listen to your interpretation in the first place? Are you more intellectual, more spiritual than the Church Fathers?

 

[Odell]

Odell,

There have only been two people in the New Testament, after Christ ascended, that have actually been transferred to heaven in the body…

1. Paul himself (2 Cor. 12:2-7).
2. The Apostle John (Rev. 1:10-18)

Actually Paul wasnt transferred in body. I believe its say “I was called up in spirit on the Lords day” which happens to be when they broke bread (the mass) (Acts 20:7) (Lk 24:1)

Likewise, Christ does not come down from heaven in the body until He comes in the clouds in all His glory. (Mark 13:26)

Amen. never said he did. We meet Him and are called up in spirit!
MASS IS HEAVEN ON EARTH! notice John didnt say Jesus came down but that he was called up on the Lords day.
and what did John sees in heaven the same things we see at the mass!

an alter(Rev 8:3)
candles(1:2)
incense (5:8)
priests dressed in robes (4:4)
bread of manna (2:17)
bowls and chalices of BLOOD (ch16)
**And a wedding feast of the Lamb (19:9) it is amazing to take part of the same feast that is taking place in heaven! **

The only way to partake of the body of Christ, is to believe and be saved.

Amen. I was baptised into Christ Jesus and I believe.
I thought we was going from scripture
(1Cor 10:16) " The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a PARTICIPATION in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break is it no a PARTCIPATION in the BODY of Christ." that is what we have at the mass.

you say to participate in the body is simply believe but the bible says it is the supper that we all participate in at mass.

Im going to go with scripture and the Church on this one. not Johns theology 2,000 years later

 

[sara888]

I’ve been pointing this out as well; please convince us that you have it better than the Early Church Fathers who were taught by the Apostles themselves. That’s all I’m asking: why should we listen to your interpretation in the first place? Are you more intellectual, more spiritual than the Church Fathers?

**
He is still misquoting and misinterpreting scripture.

THe whole NT of CHrist is about Faith and his commandments. these are the two basic principals of the bible.

Jan**

 

[gardenswithkids]

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)

John, I appreciate your efforts, but it seems to me that Jane Francis got it right earlier. You are trying to use grammar as a crutch to make the Bible say something that it does not say. Outside of a literal interpretation of the Eucharist, it makes little sense for St. Paul to have written anything about discerning the Lord’s body in this passage.

As a side note while we’re on the subject of examining oneself before recieving Communion, I want to make sure you are aware that the Catholic Church teaches (just as the Bible says) that we should examine ourselves before recieving Communion.

 

[The_Catholic]

The Catholic,

That is not what Jesus, or the Apostles taught. On the contrary, over and over again they rejected false teaching, warned sinners of hell and damnation, and proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ…

The gospel of Jesus Christ is not hard to understand, I have written an article to explain it simply if you care to read it.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Yes to those who reject the Gospel because of pride and not ignorance. I’m speaking of a member such as let’s say a Calvinist or a Mormon who denies what the Catholic Church teaches because they are just too ignorant (not arogant) to understand. But they live a good and humble life, the fruits of the Holy Spirit are seen within them, and they’re seeking God to the best of their knowledge. Do you really and honestly believe they’re dammed?

If that is the case then you should be concerned because you yourself deny Catholicism. Catholics and Protestants differ on many important doctrines, and even Protestants differ on many important doctrines. Some Protestants, such as Mr. Harold Camping from Family Radio believes that if you deny the doctrine of predestination/election after hearing it, and continue to believe in free will, then you’re dammed. Because in his words “it’s not the GOSPEL of Christ. It’s not the true GOSPEL.”

So then, who speaks for the true Gospel ?Because there are many doctrines that are not “secondary” btween Protestants and Protestants. Even Martin Luther agreed with this as he believed he was reforming the “true” Church.

Words are cheap and actions speak louder than words. I know Catholics who are down right dirty, mean, fanatical, uncaring and disgraceful and other Catholics who are like saints. I can say the same for other faiths.

The most important doctrine is how you live your life for God. “You will know them by their fruits.”

I’de rather be fruitful (even if I am wrong on some of my beliefs) and not fruitless (yet knowing the fullness of Truth because it will profit nothing!) Christ scolded the Pharisees for that and their hearts of stone and honoring Him with their lips and NOT their heart.

I will never, and can never believe that if one doesn’t know the fullness of Truth then he is dammed. That is EVIL and UNGODLY. A statment only a fanatic would make. The same ones who would burn you at the stake for not believing what you say. And this is why religon causes so much death, war and destruction. Because of fanatics.

 

[The_Catholic]

Sorry everyone. I do not mean to change the subject of this thread.

 

[DCD]

I wonder if the story about the two disciples Lk:24:13-35 could be applied to this thread. We see the The Word interpeting The Word so we know for a fact that this was a bible study par excellence. I see some parallels first we have Our Lord opening up the scriptures in a way that these two disciples had never known. We could contrast that today with Christ’s Church and the many converts coming Home to Rome. Many of the comments that I have read or heard is how they had been faithful to the scriptures but found a deeper truth after they had been taught the Word. The second parallel is even after learning the meaning of the scriptures that they thought they knew, they only recognized or fully encounterd the Risen Jesus after the the blessing and celebration of the bread. It was not the scriptures that revealed who was in their midst that day it was the feeding of five thousand. It was the breaking and feeding of the four thousand. Contrast that with the many converts coming Home to Rome it is the Blessed Sacrament that draws many disciples back to Christ.

It is fascinating to see that today we have disciples of Christ 2000 years removed from the culture of the day trying to self interpet The Word and boast that their conclusions is what Christ meant instead of trusting in His Church where He has left The Deposit of Faith.

I hope this was not to far of topic

Peace

 

[RevDrNorth]

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

Good point. Even biblical literalists do a nice tap dance and explain away the plain and literal words of Christ.

North

 

[Lukelion]

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

I agree. If Jesus can be God and man, He certainly can be God and Bread.

Lukelion

 

[Pax]

There is another passage that speaks similarly but even more emphatically about scripture. Jesus says the following in John 5:37-40.

“And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness to me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen; and you do not have his word abiding in you,** for you do not believe him whom he has sent**. You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.”

This statement by Jesus comes to roost in John Chapter 6 when the disciples leave Jesus because they refused to believe him when he said, “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.”

The final iteration is found in verse 64 which says, " ‘But there are some of you that do not believe.’ For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe." They had walked with him and believed in him and his miracles until he told them that he would give them his flesh to eat and blood to drink. This is what they refused to believe.

Today, we have those that read scripture and do so earnestly yet they do not believe what Jesus clearly stated over and over again in John 6. Scripture is the inspired word of God and it contains the truth that we need for our salvation. Unfortunately, our hearts and minds are not always open to the truth contained therein.

The “church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth” per 1 Tim 3:15, and it is for this reason that we depend upon the church to guide us. Otherwise, we would be as Paul puts it “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine.” The true presence in the Eucharist is the constant teaching of Christianity. The departure from this truth occurred at the Reformation.

 

[Courage_to_ride]

" I am not a protestant, I have never been Catholic."

bibleapologist,

Ahhhh, but you are Protestant. You claim to be Baptist. And you are protesting Catholic teaching.

Not only that but you are closed to other view points. So if you were sincerely trying to “witness” to anyone, you would be able to relate because you haven’t taken the time to here what others believe.

You must open your heart and ears and shut you mouth to hear and understand what people are communicating to you.

I know your type, I work with you (your type). Anti Catholic. When you don’t get the satisfaction you are looking for you will end the conversation.

May God give you peace.

Courage