Jesus denied transubstantiation

[Magicsilence]

Hooray, this has to be the most circular thread in existence!

Every point has been made about fifty times and John, you have only given illogical responses.

Lets sum it up:

John says one thing.

History, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Early Church Fathers, the theologians, the apostles, Christ HIMSELF said something different.

Who are we going to trust?

Peace and God Bless.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Church Militant,

I see the same thing from my perspective. When I received Christ 17yrs. ago I went to many different Churches and couldn’t find a Church that was preaching and teaching the truth. After the JW’s, Non Denom., Catholic, and others in between I ended up in the Church I am in… not because of what I had been taught, but what I had been reading from the Bible. From that experience the only conclusion I can come to is that others believe what they believe because that is what they have been taught from others.

John
www.gideonsword.net

You looked for a church that matched your perception of the truth. As others pointed out, you did have your personal interpretations when you approached the church, and expected that you, as a new Christian no less, had a clearer understanding of the Bible than others, who had quite possibly been reading the Bible for much longer than you!
I don’t blame you though. It’s very tempting to assume that others are right, and we are not. It’s very hard to believe that we have been taught incorrectly, or worse, have interpreted Scriptures incorrectly. It is equally tempting to look for a religion that teaches us that we are ok, that we don’t have to work to overcome our sins and grow in holiness, or doesn’t expect us to confront our sins or imperfections.
One of my biggest obstacles to becoming a Catholic was pride. I didn’t want to admit that many of my own interpretations of the Bible, the Church, grace, and sacraments, had been wrong. But when I read the passages in question, (John 6, Corinthians 10 and 11, and the Institution narratives) I had to admit that the plain teachings of the passages was that The Real Presence was indeed the truth of God.
In my experience, the Holy Spirit spends a lot more time pointing out where I’m wrong (not just in my understanding of Scriptures, but MOSTLY in the way I live my life) and very little time showing me where I’m right.

 

[tealblue]

the word flesh is not talking about his flesh but our flesh.just because christ says his words are spirit doesn’t in now way deny christ earlier words.If christ were to tell us to get on our knees and pray and later on say my words are spirit would this constute the belief he wasn’t literal about us getting on our knees just because he says his words are spirit.using this method to interpret scripture you would have to throw out everything.you are missing one point, the jews understood christ to be talking about his literal flesh when he was talking am I right.you are making a big leap to say christs words were misunderstood.when christ talked in medaphore the jews always knew what he was saying.when christ said he was the door to eternal life did any of the jews question him about him being made of wood.no so why are you asuming that the jews misunderstood about them literaly eating his flesh?

in the old testement I think exodus moses took the blood of the sacrafised and literaly threw the blood onto the people and said this is the blood of the covenant.well christ also says his blood is the blood of the covenant.christ didn’t come to destroy the law but to fulfil it.in the old testement the blood of the covenant was literal blood of the sacrafised.In the new covent why is christs blood now just a metaphore.I know we can’t sacrafise christ everyday but this is exactly why we have the sacrafise of the mass in the eukarist for this same reason.In the old testement sacraments were everyday life of the believer.in the early church the same way.all of a sudden 1600 years after christ everything is symbolic and spiritual only.why is this.the evangelical church in my opinion is turning new age thats why I left.thanks for the platfrom
peace be with you.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Bibleapologist,
You stated in an earlier post that, in John Chapter 6, Jesus DELIBERATLY gave the Jews false teaching to test their faith. Can you show me another example in the Gospels where Jesus gives someone a false teaching to test their faith?

 

[Subrosa]

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

Hi John and God bless -

Your statement here about the time the “true church” taught it’s belief in the Real Presence is incorrect.

Saint Justin Martyr in his First Apology written circa. 150AD states…

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.

Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch during the time of the Apostles, in his letter to the Romans states…

I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

And also, again from St Ignatius in his letter to the Smyrnaeans states…

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, 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

However you read the passages you quote in the Gospel of John, the earliest christians believed in the Real Presence. There is no question of this. If you would like more quotes, I will be happy to provide them for they exist throughout christian history.

The belief in the Real Presence was not questioned until the Reformation, and that from the Anabaptists from which your own Baptist religion derives. Yes, you are a Protestant whether or not you admit it.

 

[DianJo]

I hope I do not step on DianJo’s toes but I do not think that is what was meant. DianJo was talking about our participation in what Christ passed on to us in the last supper tradition. And through participating in that tradition we are following Christ’s commandment of “Do this in rememberance of me” the alternative as you project it John of:

leaves no room to practice as Christ instructed us to practice. DianJo never said that we are saved because we go to the mass, rather, we are informed at the mass as to how to be saved and we give thanks to Jesus for doing the act which are able to believe in which allows us to be saved, all at the mass. (sorry that last sentance would not come out of me any simpler)

Visavisameyou, you are most certainly not stepping on my toes!
I couldn’t have said it better myself - thanks! That’s exactly what I was attempting to get across.

 

[DianJo]

DianJo,

Are you saying that the actual Passover occurs every year at the Jewish Passover? That original passover was again, a “symbolism” of the coming passover Lamb, which was Jesus.
The original Passover was not symbolism - it actually happened. Yes, it did foreshadow the fulfillment of the New Covenant and yes - according to the language of the bible, that same Passover event becomes present to them every year - over and over - for all time.

How could the Jews remember something that had not happened yet?
They couldn’t - the Jews in Egypt were actually there. Maybe I don’t understand what you’re getting at.

It was symbolic of judgement. In the New Testament, every day of your life is the passover… in that if you are not covered by the Blood of the Lamb you are already condemned.
It may be symbolic of judgement in the New Testament but why is that the only thing visible to you? The Passover was a foreshadowing as I said before. God, in His infinite wisdom, was teaching His people about the New Covenant to come as well as beginning a covenant with the Israelites. A covenant was always “ratified” with sacrifice which is what the Jews did in sacrificing the lamb. They ate of that lamb. In that meal there are 2 pieces of unleavend bread - one is broken in half and covered, to be consummed later in the meal. The Passover meal was also a foreshadowing of the Eucharist - the New Covenant.

I can’t go over the entire Seder meal but you really need to attend one to see the significance.

I thought you had a theology degree? All of this is in the OT.
Maybe I’m not getting my point across to you or understanding what you’re trying to tell me.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Gene_C]

Hi bibleapologist,

Do you have an interpretation of the following passage and how it relates to the topic at hand? It very clearly sets forth that the body and blood of the Lord are Present in the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist.

1 Corinthians 11

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In 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.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 Therefore, 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. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

Peace,
Gene

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Bibleapologist,
You stated in an earlier post that, in John Chapter 6, Jesus DELIBERATLY gave the Jews false teaching to test their faith. Can you show me another example in the Gospels where Jesus gives someone a false teaching to test their faith?

If the Jews thought that He was taking about cannabalism i.e. literal blood and body, then wouldn’t it follow that Jesus Himself was talking literally?

 

[Truthstalker]

So Jesus lied? The Truth became a lie? The One who draws all men to Himself and desires that all be saved drove people from Himself by means of a lie? Is that where this argument has led our Bibleapologist - into arguing that Jesus is a liar and drives people away from Him by means of false teaching? Jesus teaches false teaching? Where, then can we be sure He is not leading us astray by teaching lies again? Is God untrustworthy?
To defend this argument our Bibleapologist has descended into blasphemy.

Thank you but I will stick with what I have already believed. Note the following:

1. He claims to have defeated all our arguments.
2. He claims to be inspired by the Holy Spirit in oppostion to the whole of the Catholic Church and the ECFs, and apparently to reason.
3. Reasoning with him has gotten us nowhere.
4. Very few, if any of my posts have been answered. See #1. This bugs me. I think others are in similar situations.
5. Those whose posts have been answered go in circles.

 

[alexaustralia]

As I said before, I appreciate that stance. But one must also consider the fact that those same people you call qualified are not infallible, and could very well have misinterpreted the Apostle’s teaching.

Your main argument against the ECFs is that they could have thaught heresy. The difference between the ECFs and other early Christians is thay they were men of authority. That authority was given by some of them by the apostles themselves, eg Ignatius. Now if St. John and St. Peter chose Ignatius and appointed him Bishop of Antioch is because they had confidence in him to teach others the truth. If he at a later date had chosen to teach heresy wouldn’t you think that the apostles would have done something about it (they would have definetly not kept him as Bishop). Or that the hiearchy or other Christians would not have complained if they could see the contradiction between Ignatius’ teaching and what they have heard from the Apostles? There is a difference between a “regular joe” going off the rails and an ECF teaching heresy in that the ECF would have been heavily reprimanded and history would not have been silent if that was the case…you need to prove to us that these protests against the ECFs teachings occured in order for their authority to be ignored. In the case of Ignatius he was early on recognised as a saint…why would Christianity hold such esteem for a heretic?..unless his teachings were in conformity with the collective deposit of faith.

Alex

 

[Stephen_C]

John,
With all due respect, this is my take from what I have seen in this and the other threads you have started. You have built your Theology from the top down. You had your belief and then build your supporting theology around it. Choosing anything that seems to support your claims, and rejecting or assuming away anything that does not fit. If you have to invent things on the way so be it. That is what I see here. You have also when not able to explain or answer our questions, pulled the Holy Spirit card. Well like I said in an earlier post, the Holy Spirit with me kicking and screaming at times has led me back to the Catholic Church. I will pray for you my brother.

God’s peace,
Stephen

 

[SPH1]

adrift,

Quote
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

Christ isn’t referring to HIS flesh as profiting nothing, afterall, Christ’s flesh is what he gave for the life of the world! John 6:51.

The Mass/Eucharist is not a dividing issue between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, who have a full real presence (although they may not define it as Latin Catholics do.)

Lutherans & Anglicans (some Anglicans, anyway) have a real presence.

Even Presbyterians and such reject a purely symbolic view.

You apparently have symbolic sacraments to go with your symbolic Church and symbolic God.

 

[Pax]

Pax,

Can you tell me then why Jesus said this…

And why did the Jews say this?..

I believe you are the one who is way off target…

John
www.gideonsword.net

This is not a rebuttal of my post.

 

[bibleapologist]

Orionthehunter,

Why wouldn’t you ask that? You believe you are divinely inspired in your interpretation. Why wouldn’t you ask them to concede out of faith?

For the same reason Jesus in John 6 didn’t give the Jews a sign. They would have followed Him for the wrong reason… Jesus wanted them to believe in “HIM”. HE is the sign… just not the sign they wanted.

You also claim to be so divinely inspired that those who were personal and direct disciples of St. John the Evangelist were heretics.

No, I only claim that they were wrong about transubstantiation… I don’t know them well enough to say they were heretics.

Finally, Scripture is to be taken as complete cloth. Your attempt to parse a particular discourse such that it can be distorted to fit your personal, individual agenda does a disservice to the Bread of Life Discourse but denigrates all of Scripture.

Your right, the Bible is to be taken as complete cloth, so why don’t you give me some concrete Biblical evidence from the scripture as a whole to prove transubstantiation. Jesus summed up the gospel in Matthew 23:23 and John 6:29, how can you defend transubstantiation in such a way as to not contradict Jesus’ summary of the gospel?

My pursuit of the Truth and Love of God is not motivated such that I will change God and Truth but that they will change me. Your approach is to try to change the Truth.

Regardless of what I say or do, or Ignatius, Clement, Augustine, or you… the truth will remain the truth… What really matters is what we do for the truth…

2Co 13:8 For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

valientLucy,

Bibleapologist,
You stated in an earlier post that, in John Chapter 6, Jesus DELIBERATLY gave the Jews false teaching to test their faith. Can you show me another example in the Gospels where Jesus gives someone a false teaching to test their faith?

Actually it was someone else that claimed that was my argument… I said nothing of the sort. Please consult post #282 to see what I really said.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

subrosa,

The belief in the Real Presence was not questioned until the Reformation, and that from the Anabaptists from which your own Baptist religion derives. Yes, you are a Protestant whether or not you admit it.

No, I’m not a Protestant… and I think your accusation of my religious affiliation is a result of your tainted view of what the “True Church” is.

Enough on that subject though… If someone doesn’t have anything pertinent to the topic of transubstantiation please point it out on another thread or send me a private message or something. I don’t have the time to reply to posts like this, nor will it edify anyone here. We are here to compare transubstantiation with the truth. If they are harmonious, then you have won. If they are not, then I have proven my point. We are not here to compare…

bibleapologist to the ECF’s
bibleapologist to Catholic Church credentials
bibleapologist to his own religious affiliation
bibleapologist to humanism

What proof do you have of what you say is the truth?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Mr. Stalker,

Thank you but I will stick with what I have already believed. Note the following:

1. He claims to have defeated all our arguments.
2. He claims to be inspired by the Holy Spirit in oppostion to the whole of the Catholic Church and the ECFs, and apparently to reason.
3. Reasoning with him has gotten us nowhere.
4. Very few, if any of my posts have been answered. See #1. This bugs me. I think others are in similar situations.
5. Those whose posts have been answered go in circles.

1. I have given more scriptural evidence concerning the symbolic use of the Lord’s Supper than anyone else has.
2. Truth is the benchmark, I can only point you to that benchmark. I am not exalting myself as an authority in the area, I am only pointing to the truth. If you will judge your own convictions by comparing them with truth you might see things differently.
3. Why not try rightly dividing the word of truth? This is not a philosophy thread, we are contending over the scripture… of which the Catholics here have had very little to contribute.
4. Yes, many are in other positions… if you were in my position you would be doing the same thing I am doing. Rather than answering every single post, I am giving muti-post inclusive answers. Sorry if your feelings are hurt.
5. Yes they do seem to be going in circles, except for a few here that are not reiterating the same comments, and making the same assertions that I have answered numerous times.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Subrosa]

subrosa,

No, I’m not a Protestant… and I think your accusation of my religious affiliation is a result of your tainted view of what the “True Church” is.

Enough on that subject though… If someone doesn’t have anything pertinent to the topic of transubstantiation please point it out on another thread or send me a private message or something. I don’t have the time to reply to posts like this, nor will it edify anyone here. We are here to compare transubstantiation with the truth. If they are harmonious, then you have won. If they are not, then I have proven my point. We are not here to compare…

bibleapologist to the ECF’s
bibleapologist to Catholic Church credentials
bibleapologist to his own religious affiliation
bibleapologist to humanism

What proof do you have of what you say is the truth?

John
www.gideonsword.net

How about some commentary on the passages I quoted? I would like to know your opinion.

Sorry about the “protestant” comment. I should have stayed on topic. Please accept my apology. You won’t see it again.

Blessings,
Subrosa

 

[RevDrNorth]

subrosa,

No, I’m not a Protestant… and I think your accusation of my religious affiliation is a result of your tainted view of what the “True Church” is.

Enough on that subject though… If someone doesn’t have anything pertinent to the topic of transubstantiation please point it out on another thread or send me a private message or something. I don’t have the time to reply to posts like this, nor will it edify anyone here. We are here to compare transubstantiation with the truth. If they are harmonious, then you have won. If they are not, then I have proven my point. We are not here to compare…

bibleapologist to the ECF’s
bibleapologist to Catholic Church credentials
bibleapologist to his own religious affiliation
bibleapologist to humanism

What proof do you have of what you say is the truth?

John
www.gideonsword.net

John,

I have not followed the whole thread but you seem a little upset. I see Mr. or Ms Subrosa aoplogized so hopefully everyone can get back on track. Don’t forget though before you get too angry that you are the one who pointed out that you have a theology degree and maybe that might give your arguments some weight ((implication). Then you never provided any source for it.

Your particpation here is valuable and interesting because it allows for diversity and fun discussion. I think we need to hear one another even if we disagree and discuss points. Otherwise we are all shrill voices thumping our arguments on the table.

Keep posting my Christian brother!

North