Jesus denied transubstantiation

  • Thread starter Thread starter bibleapologist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
alexaustralia,
why would Christianity hold such esteem for a heretic?
Click to expand...
I really don’t know, maybe that would be a question for Osama Bin laden, or David Koresh, or wait… those filthy Anabaptists.

I tend to think that somewhere along the line, the Church in Rome began giving unbelievers what they wanted… a sign, like the Jews in John 6 were seeking. I think maybe the Lord’s supper became that sign which diverted unbelievers from believing, and impressed them with a mystical cup of wine and bread that actually became Jesus.

This is exactly why the New Age movement has such a large following, psychic fairs are being held all over the country, mediums have storefront businesses, there are television shows exalting witchcraft, psychic phenomena, spirit mediums etc. ; unbelieving people are enthralled with this kind of thing… the “mystical unknown”, or, that phenomena which is more powerful than ourselves, but cannot be explained.

How does the “eucharist” differ from any of the “signs” I just mentioned? And how can you prove it is different?

It’s effects are the same on an unbeliever.

Jesus in John 6 refused to give the Jews a sign by doing something and saying “Look what I can do”. Instead He asserted that He was the sign…
Joh 6:40 …every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life…
Click to expand...
What is so hard to understand about this?

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
  1. I have given more scriptural evidence concerning the symbolic use of the Lord’s Supper than anyone else has.
Click to expand...
,

This really made me laugh and I am sure you don’t mean it as written. You have, of course, given more scripture on this point since we don’t believe that it is symbolic. More scriputre has been presented to you about it not being symbolic than you have provide otherwise. The scriptures you have presented our riffed with your interpetation.
You have failed to answer:
When Jesus said this is my body, it was a plain statement of fact and it contradicts your assertion that he denied transubstantiation. You have yet to provide a direct statement from Jesus supporting your view one that is not just your interpretation.
Click to expand...
Your attempt to compare it to telling your wife you loved her through a flower was week.

Jesus left no room for such an explanation.
 
Hey John,

A protestant is only a non-Catholic or non-Orthodox Christian. As a Christian, you are either a Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox Christian.

This is not a bad thing. There’s nothing negative about calling yourself a Protestant. Just letting you know! From my general understanding here, you ARE a Protestant.

God bless,
Cat
 
  1. I have given more scriptural evidence concerning the symbolic use of the Lord’s Supper than anyone else has.
Click to expand...
,

This really made me laugh and I am sure you don’t mean it as written. You have, of course, given more scripture on this point since we don’t believe that it is symbolic. More scriputre has been presented to you about it not being symbolic than you have provide otherwise. The scriptures you have presented our riffed with your interpetation.
You have failed to answer:
When Jesus said this is my body, it was a plain statement of fact and it contradicts your assertion that he denied transubstantiation. You have yet to provide a direct statement from Jesus supporting your view one that is not just your interpretation.
Click to expand...
Your attempt to compare it to telling your wife you loved her through a flower was week.

Jesus left no room for such an explanation.
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?
Click to expand...
It has been demonstrated to you in a much more convincing way than your twisting of the scriptures. I see no contradiction in those scriptures. Those scriptures do not contain all of what Jesus taught and no where does it say the Jesus was intending to summerize His teachings there. It is just another weak argument. How can you deny transubstatntiation without denying Jesus’ own words “THIS IS my body” It is in perfecdt harmony with the scriptures as a whole.

You did not answer the post that questioned you calling Jesus a liar.
 
bibleapologist said:
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
Click to expand...
What proof do you have that Jesus Christ is God? Are you going to use a text that was put together by the Roman Catholic Church to prove that Christ is God? Please respond. I am very interested. Thanks in advance.
 
Subrosa,
How about some commentary on the passages I quoted?
Click to expand...
I scanned (very quickly) through the posts, and the only one I found that quoted passages was the passages from Ignatius.

I could comment on those passages, but there would be nothing new from me than what I have already mentioned on this thread and in the article I wrote.

If I quoted Dr. Peter Ruckman, or someone else more highly esteemed than I among those who I am associated with, and you were honest with yourself, that would not add anything to my argument at all… because he obviously believes the same as I do on the subject and would only be reiterating my postition.

Neither do I feel that quoting Ignatius adds anything to your argument. All Ignatius does is reiterate your position.

The Catholic position on transubstantiation was clear to me before I even started this thread.

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
Cathicks,
Hey John,
Click to expand...
A protestant is only a non-Catholic or non-Orthodox Christian. As a Christian, you are either a Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox Christian.
Click to expand...
This is not a bad thing. There’s nothing negative about calling yourself a Protestant. Just letting you know! From my general understanding here, you ARE a Protestant.
Click to expand...
The term “Protestant” has the connotation that one is in protest against the “True Church”. Although I do not believe any ill will was intended in calling me a protestant, I do feel I need to make it clear that I do not regard the Catholic Church the “true Church”. And from my perspective the Catholic Church is a “protestant” denomination because they hold to doctrines that are oppositional to my understanding of the “true Church”.

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
bibleapologist said:
alexaustralia,

I really don’t know, maybe that would be a question for Osama Bin laden, or David Koresh, or wait… those filthy Anabaptists.

I tend to think that somewhere along the line, the Church in Rome began giving unbelievers what they wanted… a sign, like the Jews in John 6 were seeking. I think maybe the Lord’s supper became that sign which diverted unbelievers from believing, and impressed them with a mystical cup of wine and bread that actually became Jesus.

This is exactly why the New Age movement has such a large following, psychic fairs are being held all over the country, mediums have storefront businesses, there are television shows exalting witchcraft, psychic phenomena, spirit mediums etc. ; unbelieving people are enthralled with this kind of thing… the “mystical unknown”, or, that phenomena which is more powerful than ourselves, but cannot be explained.

How does the “eucharist” differ from any of the “signs” I just mentioned? And how can you prove it is different?

It’s effects are the same on an unbeliever.

Jesus in John 6 refused to give the Jews a sign by doing something and saying “Look what I can do”. Instead He asserted that He was the sign…

What is so hard to understand about this?

John
www.gideonsword.net
Click to expand...
You quote John 6:40 as the be all and end all of what it takes to attain salvation. You gotta do better than that bro…for…“you do well to beleive. Even the demons believe and tremble at his name…”

It takes more than merely believing in him. Satan even believes in him. Nope, you gotta do more, you gotta “keep his commandments…” As our Holy Mother told the servants at the wedding at Cana “DO EVERYTHING he tells you to do…” You can’t pick and choose. Christ did not come to abolish the law, he has FULLFILLED the law. Now, we no longer eat a Passover SYMBOL as was the passover Lamb. Now that the law is fullfilled, we eat the TRUE passover LAMB which is the living LAMB of GOD. Who in Revelations appears as a slain Lamb. Hmmm…I wonder why the glorified Christ appears in Heaven as a slain Lamb?
 
bibleapologist said:
Cathicks,

The term “Protestant” has the connotation that one is in protest against the “True Church”. Although I do not believe any ill will was intended in calling me a protestant, I do feel I need to make it clear that I do not regard the Catholic Church the “true Church”. And from my perspective the Catholic Church is a “protestant” denomination because they hold to doctrines that are oppositional to my understanding of the “true Church”.

John
www.gideonsword.net
Click to expand...
Actually, Protestant is just protesting the Catholic church.

Also, Jesus founded one Church of which various branches have peeled off. Apparently, you do not feel that the Holy Spirit was able to hold together the Church that Christ founded which became the Catholic/Orthodox Church. Therefore just like the Mormons it was necessary for you (your predecessors) to restore the true church. What then is the difference?

The Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and to some extent the Lutherans carry on some form of the ancient litrugical worship of the church. Then we have various Protestant groups crop up that throw out various aspects of the church to restore it to what they see as it roots. In the process denying the teaching and tradition of those closest to Jesus and the Apostles (early Church fathers). Denying the ability of the holy spirit to maintain the Church as promised in the New Testament. This leads us to assume that almost right after the aopstles the Holy Spirit malfunctioned and the church fell into apostasy until certain protestant groups formed 1600 or so years later. I think Roman Catholics must have more faith in the promises of the New Testament and trust in the Power of the Holy Spirit than a great many of the non Roman Catholics.

Do you beleive that God bungled the whole thing (or allowed us to) for 1500 or so years and then did a restoration? Jesus established One Church and it has been sustained by the Holy Spirit.

North
 
St. eric,
What proof do you have that Jesus Christ is God? Are you going to use a text that was put together by the Roman Catholic Church to prove that Christ is God? Please respond. I am very interested. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
If I believe in the existence of a “trinity”, it is not because of the teaching of the Catholic Church if that is what you are getting at.

Since the Catholic Church does teach the existence of the trinity, I can only assume that their findings were based in the same scripture that I have found evidence for that same doctrine.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
Click to expand...
Gen 18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw [them], he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
Gen 18:3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
Click to expand...
1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Click to expand...
Joh 10:30 I and [my] Father are one.
Click to expand...
Eph 3:17 That **Christ may dwell in your hearts **by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Click to expand...
John 10:30 Jesus says He and the Father are one.
Eph. 3:17 says Christ dwells in our hearts…
Galatians 4:6 says the Spirit of Christ dwells in our hearts…
and 1 Cor. 2:11 says the Spirit of God dwells in us… so these three must be one.

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
John,

After reading your beliefs on your website, and looking through some of the articles, all I can say is WOW! I think almost every historical and modern heresy is wraped up into your website. I will pray for you brother and already have. It will definetly take the touch of God to soften your heart and see the truth. Hopefully your time spent here will be fruitfull. May almighty God Bless you!
 
Rev. Dr. North,
Also, Jesus founded one Church of which various branches have peeled off. Apparently, you do not feel that the Holy Spirit was able to hold together the Church that Christ founded which became the Catholic/Orthodox Church. Therefore just like the Mormons it was necessary for you (your predecessors) to restore the true church. What then is the difference?
Click to expand...
I knew I shouldn’t have answered that post…

You seem to be assuming that the “Catholic church” has been the only one claiming to be a Christian Church for the last 2000 years.

The truth is… the Catholic Church did not organize until the 4th century, before that there were “Metropolitans” which were churches who started other churches and tried to remain in control of those “satellite” churches.

Before that there is no evidence that there was anything other than complete autonomy among the local churches.

Let’s start another thread if you want to debate Church history, I’ll be glad to discuss it with you.

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
St. Eric,
After reading your beliefs on your website, and looking through some of the articles, all I can say is WOW! I think almost every historical and modern heresy is wraped up into your website. I will pray for you brother and already have. It will definetly take the touch of God to soften your heart and see the truth. Hopefully your time spent here will be fruitfull. May almighty God Bless you!
Click to expand...
Which of the articles that I wrote which are published on my website would you like to debate? I can assure you, I have ample scriptural proof to defend everything I have published there.

Which heresies (in your opinion) are represented there?

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
bibleapologist said:
St. eric,

If I believe in the existence of a “trinity”, it is not because of the teaching of the Catholic Church if that is what you are getting at.

Since the Catholic Church does teach the existence of the trinity, I can only assume that their findings were based in the same scripture that I have found evidence for that same doctrine.

John 10:30 Jesus says He and the Father are one.
Eph. 3:17 says Christ dwells in our hearts…
Galatians 4:6 says the Spirit of Christ dwells in our hearts…
and 1 Cor. 2:11 says the Spirit of God dwells in us… so these three must be one.

John
www.gideonsword.net
Click to expand...
Actually my only point here is that if your only proof that Jesus Christ is God comes from the Holy Bible then your position that Catholic Church is without authority is untenable. The Catholic Church cannonized the bible in the 4th century. Prior to that, all theree was were any number of writings by apostles and ECF, some inspired, some not. Who knew what to believe as the inspired word of God? The Catholic Church decided that for us under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. How do you know a writing was inspired? By your own authority? I think not, you are, to this day, relying on the Catholic Churchs declaration that a writing was/is inspired. SO, my question would be then, why now is the church capable of giving you the cannonized bible in the 4th century and that same church today, that same one that can trace every bishop and Pope back to Peter himself, wrong? What happened? Was the church the true church only long enough to give us the bible and then, Poof! It apostasized? What happened?
 
bibleapologist said:
Rev. Dr. North,

I knew I shouldn’t have answered that post…

You seem to be assuming that the “Catholic church” has been the only one claiming to be a Christian Church for the last 2000 years.

The truth is… the Catholic Church did not organize until the 4th century, before that there were “Metropolitans” which were churches who started other churches and tried to remain in control of those “satellite” churches.

Before that there is no evidence that there was anything other than complete autonomy among the local churches.

Let’s start another thread if you want to debate Church history, I’ll be glad to discuss it with you.

John
www.gideonsword.net
Click to expand...
Not so brother. As early as the 2nd century St. Ignatius acknowledges that the head of the church is the Bishop of Rome. This would indicate an organized church with the top earthly leader (Christ being the supreme leader) of the body already residing in Rome where he still sits today.
 
St. Eric,
Actually my only point here is that if your only proof that Jesus Christ is God comes from the Holy Bible then your position that Catholic Church is without authority is untenable. The Catholic Church cannonized the bible in the 4th century. Prior to that, all theree was were any number of writings by apostles and ECF, some inspired, some not.
Click to expand...
I am afraid your historocity is very wrong here. The first compilation of New Testament writings were compiled in ad150, two versions came from the byzantine texts… the Peshito (syrian), and the Itala Biblia (latin). In the 4th century, Constantine requested that Eusebius give his scholarship to Jerome to revise and copy 50 latin bibles for the empire. Jerome revised the Itala Biblia to create his Latin Vulgate which was perverted by the philosophical “scholarship” of Alexandria.

This is the version that was proclaimed “canon” by the Catholic church. During the Latin Vulgate’s usage by the Catholic church, the Gothic Bible (of the byzantine line) was being used by those who weren’t absorbed by the Catholic church.

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
St. Eric,
Not so brother. As early as the 2nd century St. Ignatius acknowledges that the head of the church is the Bishop of Rome. This would indicate an organized church with the top earthly leader (Christ being the supreme leader) of the body already residing in Rome where he still sits today.
Click to expand...
If Ignatius did write that, it only means that the bishop of Rome was the head of the church HE recognized, that bishop was nothing more than a “metropolitan” (a bishop who ruled over more than one church), which by the way is not scriptural.

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top