Prove Transubtantiation and I will convert

[po18guy]

In the mass, when he is viewed literally (Wrong) in the wafer and the wine as being literally (Wrong) there…its like he is having to be sacrificed again (Wrong) and again. I will say this repeatedly (and soon, maybe even you will believe it)…I am not a catholic basher (It would help if you set the hammer down…)…I have MANY dear and precious friends of that religious institution (You mean “us”)…but please…the mass is not Biblical (Wrong)…neither is transubstantiation (Extremely wrong).

Please correct the foregoing and we can attempt to have an intelligent conversation. We do not accuse you of worshipping the bible, because we know that it is not true. Yet, you have been fed horrible lies and regurgitate them here, after having apparently done no research or investigation. :tsktsk:
xxx

I know (incorrectly) that in days past…you were damned basically if you did not believe that (wrong again)…according to the Canon laws (of noted Catholic Jack T. Chick), which states…If any one shall deny…let him be accursed (There is no lie like the BIG LIE). I will state that I quoted this from a book by Jack Chick (the ONLY thing you have right so far ).

To put it mildly, this is “mis-information” of the first order.

Ok…I know…he is not popular among the Catholic institution (You mean our Church?)…but he truly is trying (how can you possibly know this???) to state Biblical truth (according to Jack T. Chick, who cannot save you). I know my post probably isnt popular…(sure got my attention!) but please, I do not mean to be ugly or disrespectful…just sharing what I know.(now you also know that it is all wrong)

Please, get a catechism and learn from the source. You are sooooo badly misinformed that you cannot imagine. I know you don’t think you are a Catholic basher, but…you certainly could have fooled me. You cannot separate the Catholic from the church, because we ARE the church. Hate the church, hate us. I really don’t know who founded Jack Chick’s church, but it certainly does not appear to be Christ.

 

[po18guy]

Hi

That is why I am of the opinion that it was only a superstition of the faithful . I agree that Jesus message should be spread to the corners of the world.

Thanks

Since you do not currently believe that Christ is the Son of God, the Son of Man and the Son of Mary, it appears to be a superstition. Even if Christ were only a prophet, why would he spread superstition? That would cast doubt upon all Prophets - and we don’t want to do that now, do we?

 

[AlegreFe]

I believe you are confused–or rather ignorant of what Lutherans believe.

I am not confused. I just read what his profile said and then read his signature. I did not say anything about what Lutherans believe. I have some knowledge about what Lutherans believe. But that had nothing to do with my statement about the difference in his signature and in his profile.

 

[paarsurrey]

Since you do not currently believe that Christ is the Son of God, the Son of Man and the Son of Mary, it appears to be a superstition. Even if Christ were only a prophet, why would he spread superstition? That would cast doubt upon all Prophets - and we don’t want to do that now, do we?

Hi

I would like to correct you, very humbly, please don’t mind.

I currently believe that JesusYeshuaIssa a Jewish ribbi the ChristMessiahMasihMoshiach is the Son of God meaning he was a loved-one of GodAllahYHWH as per the usage of OTBible, he was the Son of Man ( being one of the offspring of Adam, as he had no father so he ascribed himself as a son of man ie Adam ) and the Son of Mary, that I believe very much. Mary however was not a wife to God.

This I do believe, without any offence to my friends here.

Thanks

 

[ncgolf]

I currently believe that JesusYeshuaIssa a Jewish ribbi the ChristMessiahMasihMoshiach is the Son of God meaning he was a loved-one of GodAllahYHWH as per the usage of OTBible.

Thanks

If you acknowledge the words Christ, Messiah … do you know what you are saying. Christ and Messiah mean the Anointed One. You cannot acknowledge Jesus as those terms unless you believe He is the Messiah, God the Son … the savior of the world.

The whole of the Old Testament is the story of the coming of the Messiah … the Anointed One. The Jews knew there was to be a coming of the Anointed One, the Christ, the Messiah.

For the Jews of Jesus’s time the word Messiah or the Christ took on significant meaning, for without the OT there would be no reason for them to be looking for this person … the Christ …the Messiah. The Romans were not looking for the Messiah since they had no reason to believe one was coming but for many centuries the Jewish people have waited for this person to come into the world.

All you really can say based on what you believe is that Jesus was a “well loved one of God” … but how can you say he is the Christ? or the Messiah? Your definition of Jesus is inconsistent with the terms Messiah or Christ.

 

[Ronald_E]

I wish I had the time to learn the use of this forum with quotes. I apologize. In St. Justin Martyr’s quote"…so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him…" there are several points I would like to make. 1) Consecrated means to make holy. 2) Made holy by the Word of prayer. 3)The Word of prayer for consecration was taught by the Word Made Flesh who is Jesus. 4) Only Christ’s Words can make something holy. 5) When it is holy it is changed according to Christ’s intention.
Contarini is correct in his interpretation that we are transformed by receiving Communion. However, this Eucharist as St. Justin Martyr stated “…is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus”. Jesus taught them the prayer to use for this purpose. When He breathed on them before His ascension into heaven He gave them the power to perform this task because He breathed on them from His glorified body. This is the Spirit He talks about.

 

[paarsurrey]

The Romans were not looking for the Messiah

Hi

The MessiahMasihMoshiach was not meant for the Romans, so what was sowed by Paul at Rome (later termed as Catholicism) in my opinion did not belong to JesusYeshuaIssa, that is why they were not waiting for any ChristMessiah.

Thanks

 

[mangy_dog]

Hi

The MessiahMasihMoshiach was not meant for the Romans, so what was sowed by Paul at Rome (later termed as Catholicism) in my opinion did not belong to JesusYeshuaIssa, that is why they were not waiting for any ChristMessiah.

Thanks

You know Paarsurrey,…my love for you is growing with every thread that you write. Not because of accuracy or truth or anything like that, but because they are (little by little) revealing the person you are deep inside.
I see Jesus in you…as the principal of life of your soul which is the principal of life for your body. And I know that your true identity which is hidden in Him, is trying to convert to catholicism.
That is the reason for a lot of your comments.
I really do love you Paarsurrey and I pray to Jesus Christ, True God from True God to grant you the grace and courage to “come home”.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[grandfather]

Hi

The MessiahMasihMoshiach was not meant for the Romans, so what was sowed by Paul at Rome (later termed as Catholicism) in my opinion did not belong to JesusYeshuaIssa, that is why they were not waiting for any ChristMessiah.

Thanks

Jesus is meant for all mankind. He instructed His apostles to take His message of forgiveness of sins through His blood to all the nations of the world.

 

[D317]

Guanophore’s Catholic, and a danged good one at that. He quoted Steadfast, whose church (SDA) teaches virulent anti-Catholicism which they learned from their prophetess Ellen Gould White. Steadfast, without the illumination of the Holy Spirit, will never eat the Body of Christ, or drink His Blood. Pray for him.

Christ’s peace.

po18guy, I will pray for him. Thanks for correcting me. Its hard to imagine the pain some people have inside that would make them turn to such false teachings.

AMDG

 

[Bible_Believer]

I have not figured out yet how to post a quote, so I am sure I will forget alot of what po18 posted, and that is what Im responding to.
Firstly, Jack Chick does not have a church, nor do I believe salvation comes thru him. He is a human like all of us, but one who knows God’s word.
Oh, and I DO have much of the catechism…It is included in a book that I have…NOT by Jack Chick…lol…It does however, teach what the Bible actually teaches about what the catechism teaches. Transubstantiation is truly unbiblical. You need to rightly divide the word…knowing the proper context of what you are reading. I know exactly what scripture the Roman Catholic institution uses to encourage the belief of transubstatiation. When Jesus said take eat, this is my body, He was not suggesting that they are eating his literal body. To even suggest that is pretty incredible. He was speaking spiritually about what He was about to accomplish on the cross. Spiritually, all life comes throught faith in Him…not eating His body.
I cant remember everything you said to me, but I am not misinformed on what God words says, and Im not reguritating…as you so eloquently said…what I believe into this thread…I basically was trying to remain polite, even though you were not. That is ok though, I am not offended…I will continue to stand up for God’s word…

 

[montanaman]

He was not suggesting that they are eating his literal body. To even suggest that is pretty incredible. He was speaking spiritually about what He was about to accomplish on the cross.

Lol. Right. You have to go pretty far from the words of the text to get that opinion.

No thanks–I’ll stick to what the Bible says.

 

[mangy_dog]

I have not figured out yet how to post a quote, so I am sure I will forget alot of what po18 posted, and that is what Im responding to.
Firstly, Jack Chick does not have a church, nor do I believe salvation comes thru him. He is a human like all of us, but one who knows God’s word.
Oh, and I DO have much of the catechism…It is included in a book that I have…NOT by Jack Chick…lol…It does however, teach what the Bible actually teaches about what the catechism teaches. Transubstantiation is truly unbiblical. You need to rightly divide the word…knowing the proper context of what you are reading. I know exactly what scripture the Roman Catholic institution uses to encourage the belief of transubstatiation. When Jesus said take eat, this is my body, He was not suggesting that they are eating his literal body. To even suggest that is pretty incredible. He was speaking spiritually about what He was about to accomplish on the cross. Spiritually, all life comes throught faith in Him…not eating His body.
I cant remember everything you said to me, but I am not misinformed on what God words says, and Im not reguritating…as you so eloquently said…what I believe into this thread…I basically was trying to remain polite, even though you were not. That is ok though, I am not offended…I will continue to stand up for God’s word…

It is not the only passage. Read and meditate John 6: 1 thru 66. And ask yourself, why would Jesus allow so many good disciples to walk away over a mis-understanding? Why would He let them walk away without explaining that it was all just a symbol? Why?
And while you’re at it, why would He turn to His apostles and not explain to them either? Why did Jesus allow His disciples and His apostles to go on thinking about His flesh and blood without telling them that it’s all just a symbol?

Before you read this passage, pray that the Father will over-shadow you with His wings; that Jesus will shed His blood on you; that the Holy Spirit will clear your soul and that Mary, Theotokos will guide you to her Son in the Eucharist.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Bible_Believer]

Hi! I have read John 6, and you just have to get the whole context to see that he is not speaking of eating the literal body and blood.
John 6:33-35 is consisten with the rest of the Scripture…Eteranl life comes through believing in Jesus Christ…not eating His body. And the Lord goes on to further clarigy by saying And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him may have everlasting life…John 6:40
In First Corinthians he talks of the Lord;s Supper sayig to do this in remembrance of me…The Lord’s supper is a remembrance of Christ’s work at Calvary, not a reenactment. Also Luke 22;19 states this as well…this do in remembrance of me.

 

[montanaman]

Hi! I have read John 6, and you just have to get the whole context to see that he is not speaking of eating the literal body and blood.
John 6:33-35 is consisten with the rest of the Scripture…Eteranl life comes through believing in Jesus Christ…not eating His body. And the Lord goes on to further clarigy by saying And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him may have everlasting life…John 6:40
In First Corinthians he talks of the Lord;s Supper sayig to do this in remembrance of me…The Lord’s supper is a remembrance of Christ’s work at Calvary, not a reenactment. Also Luke 22;19 states this as well…this do in remembrance of me.

It’s always either/or with you guys. EITHER Jesus said believing in him was the way to everlasting life, OR he meant to eat his flesh.

Catholic response: He meant both.

Likewise with remembrance: The Lord’s Supper IS a remembrance, and it’s also a re-presentation.

You don’t believe that? That’s fine. But I’d sure like to know why we should be moved by your novel interpretation of scripture (and your assumption that we go by scripture alone) when our’s is AT LEAST as valid. Seriously–why would I want to depart from a 2000-year-old belief that in my view is completely backed up by scripture for what some random guy who’s beliefs appeard on the scene almost two millenia after Christ thinks? Why?

 

[Contarini]

but one who knows God’s word.

He badly misunderstands it.

Oh, and I DO have much of the catechism…It is included in a book that I have…NOT by Jack Chick…

Is it by Rick Jones by any chance?

…It does however, teach what the Bible actually teaches about what the catechism teaches. Transubstantiation is truly unbiblical.

Unbiblical as in contrary to Scripture? If so, please demonstrate this.

You need to rightly divide the word…knowing the proper context of what you are reading.

And the proper context of Scripture is Christian tradition.

I know exactly what scripture the Roman Catholic institution uses to encourage the belief of transubstatiation. When Jesus said take eat, this is my body, He was not suggesting that they are eating his literal body. To even suggest that is pretty incredible.

Do you even understand the term “transubstantiation”? It is not talking about the matter of Jesus’ body–it is talking about the substantial form that makes a thing what it is. In modern terms transubstantiation doesn’t make a lot of sense, which may be a problem with the doctrine or it may be a problem with the modern view of reality. But it’s not saying that Jesus’ body is locally present under its natural dimensions (i.e., what most of us would think of as a physical presence). Some of the Catholics on this forum do take a very literal view, and since they’re Catholics and I’m not I’m in no position to tell them that they aren’t representing the Catholic position accurately. But what I see in Thomas Aquinas and other great Catholic theologians is not quite a 'literal" view but something more mysterious. (However, Aquinas did think that Jesus was present in such a way that a mouse eating the consecrated elements would be eating Jesus–so I don’t want to make him sound more “spiritualizing” than he is.)

He was speaking spiritually

What do you think “spiritually” means? Does it mean that it only exists in our minds? If Christ is present in the Eucharist in a way that doesn’t just exist in our minds, how would you speak of that?

about what He was about to accomplish on the cross.

You’re just pulling this out of thin air. He said “Take, eat, THIS is my Body.” He said it in the context of a meal. Christians have always believed that He was talking about the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. You believe otherwise because, and only because, your modern world view doesn’t let you take Jesus’ words seriously.

Spiritually, all life comes throught faith in Him…not eating His body.

In other words, only the mind saves us. Why then did Jesus rise from the dead in bodily form? Why not just “rise in our hearts” as the liberals say? That would surely awaken faith, and if that’s all that matters. . . .

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Ronald_E]

Dear Bible Believer, Our Lord is talking about what is unseen when He states He talking of the spirit and not the flesh. In every material thing and person we see it is basically light that is being held together by an unknown force that we cannot measure. However, we can measure the object that is being observed. The light that composes this object is not measureable and operates by a totally different set of laws. When I returned to our Catholic faith after being away 40 years I was changed internally. I am the same looking person but my friends know something is different. The Word made Flesh looks like us but is different dramatically from us. He tells us if we have the faith of a mustardseed we could move mountains. If all is created through Him then if He says this bread and wine are to become His Body and Blood who am I to deny His Word? The only reason I denied it before is because my father was not Catholic and we do get our sense of faith from our fathers. The flesh and its limitations of thought are the result of human history. The Spirit influences us to go beyond the flesh and to begin to open to a new possibility that God Who created everything wants us to believe Him beyond the influence of the flesh when He says this bread and wine is His Body and Blood. Our human identities are the result of beliefs and the most difficult crisis we face is an identity crisis when we are asked to believe something different from who we think we are at the most important foundation of our being. However, this is what Jesus asks us to do–to put our faith in His Word.

 

[Bible_Believer]

who is “you guys”?? You are perfectly free to believe what you like…and I am free to believe what I like…and that is God’s Word. This doesnt mean I cant read a book about what your church teaches. Bottom line…God’s Word is the final authority.

 

[montanaman]

who is “you guys”?? You are perfectly free to believe what you like…and I am free to believe what I like…and that is God’s Word. This doesnt mean I cant read a book about what your church teaches. Bottom line…God’s Word is the final authority.

Bottom line–the Bible isn’t the final authority. Inspired–yes. Authoritative–yes. Self-interpreting–no way.

 

[Ronald_E]

To believe in Him and to do this in remembrance of Him is Jesus giving us the direction to believe and do everything He has told us. It is not Him telling us to believe only to be saved. Believing in Him directs us to how He lived and what He told us to believe and what to do with His teachings. Hebrews 10:26 states"If we sin deliberately after receiving the truth there no longer remains sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries." I now know that Christ is present in the Eucharist. To deny what I know to be true is impossible. It would be to deny the Holy Spirit.