The Case Against Transubstantiation

[zerinus]

Here is the post:

zerinus.blogspot.com/2008/04/case-against-transubstantiation.html

Have a read through it and tell me what you think

zerinus

 

[teadough]

tell me what you think

zerinus

So you believe that Jesus walked on water,raised a dead man,turned water to wine, and arose from the dead Himself,yet when it comes to Him having bread turn to His body you think this is just plain crazy?

I find it harder to believe that a man was raised from the dead but I have no problems accepting it. I think you may have problems believing in the examples I gave you,so i don’t see how you could accept His body being present at Holy Communion

 

[zerinus]

So you believe that Jesus walked on water,raised a dead man,turned water to wine, and arose from the dead Himself,yet when it comes to Him having bread turn to His body you think this is just plain crazy?

I find it harder to believe that a man was raised from the dead but I have no problems accepting it. I think you may have problems believing in the examples I gave you,so i don’t see how you could accept His body being present at Holy Communion

It is not a question of whether He could do such a thing or not; but of whether it is true Christian doctrine that He would or should or not.

Raising the dead or walking on the water served a purpose at that time. Turning bread into flesh and wine into blood serves no useful purpose to anyone, and is not a Christian or biblical doctrine that He should.

Raising someone from the dead or walking on water were manifest miracles that could be observed as such. But we know that the bread is not turned into flesh, nor wine into blood, because we can eat and drink them and taste them, and take them to the laboratory and test them. It is a fake miracle if it is one.

zerinus

 

[teadough]

It is not a question of whether He could do such a thing or not; but of whether it is true Christian doctrine that He would or should or not.

Raising the dead or walking on the water served a purpose at that time. Turning bread into flesh and wine into blood serves no useful purpose to anyone, and is not a Christian or biblical doctrine that He should.

Raising someone from the dead or walking on water were manifest miracles that could be observed as such. But we know that the bread is not turned into flesh, nor wine into blood, because we can eat and drink them and taste them, and take them to the laboratory and test them. It is a fake miracle if it is one.

zerinus

So you see no similarity between Him and a Paschal Lamb? Was that just a coincidence for the sake of dramatic purpose for the story?

I would say it served a great purpose,hence the New Covenant.

It still comes down to your Faith on any of the issues that I first placed no matter how you look at it or what purpose you seem to think it served. You can believe it or you can walk away like the others did in John 6. The choice is yours.

I will keep you in my prayers. God Bless

 

[PatrickJT914]

Hi Teadough,

             Do you know much about the Eucharistic miracles? The ones that have turned into human flesh or some other form of human element. I don't know much about the subject. If you or someone else know more, you guys could direct Zerinus to the proper information. I know of a book by Bob & Penny Lord, although the title escapes me at the moment. Are there any good videos or dvd's that show these miracles?

                                     Thanks

 

[Tonks40]

You’re forgetting something that the 1st century Jews would understand at the time Christ spoke those words in John 6. They saw this in the context of the foretelling of the Messiah as outlined in the Old Testament.

When Christ said that he was to be “eaten” this goes back to Jewish sacrificial practices outlined in Exodus, with Christ being the “sacrifice,” the paschal lamb. Read Exodus and Leviticus again to see the correlation before you come to your conclusion.

 

[zerinus]

So you see no similarity between Him and a Paschal Lamb? Was that just a coincidence for the sake of dramatic purpose for the story?

I would say it served a great purpose,hence the New Covenant.

It still comes down to your Faith on any of the issues that I first placed no matter how you look at it or what purpose you seem to think it served. You can believe it or you can walk away like the others did in John 6. The choice is yours.

I will keep you in my prayers. God Bless

I am neither questioning the Atonement, nor Christ’s sacrifice, nor the symbolism of the Paschal Lamb, nor of the Passover, nor the fulfilling of it by Jesus Christ, nor the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper as a memorial of it. I am questioning the Transubstantiation, which is a completely different issue, unbiblical, and totally irrelevant to any of those things. Perhaps you hadn’t read my Blog article carefully enough. Maybe it would be a good idea to go and read it again before commenting.

zerinus

 

[O.S.Luke]

I would argue against transubstantiation being used to describe what happens at the Table to the bread and win at the Eucharist - it is an Aristotelian philosophical construct that is at odds with the mysterious nature of a sacrament.

However, after reading your article, I highly disagree with your premise. The bread and wine DO become the Body and Blood of Christ. Christ is really present - make no mistake about it.

O+

 

[zerinus]

You’re forgetting something that the 1st century Jews would understand at the time Christ spoke those words in John 6. They saw this in the context of the foretelling of the Messiah as outlined in the Old Testament.

When Christ said that he was to be “eaten” this goes back to Jewish sacrificial practices outlined in Exodus, with Christ being the “sacrifice,” the paschal lamb. Read Exodus and Leviticus again to see the correlation before you come to your conclusion.

That may indicate a valid symbolism, I agree. But that did not mean that Jesus’ words were meant to be taken literally.

zerinus

 

[JCismywingman]

Pls see here
about the euchrist turning to flesh.

“Blessed are those who have not seen yet believed”

 

[zerinus]

I would argue against transubstantiation being used to describe what happens at the Table to the bread and win at the Eucharist - it is an Aristotelian philosophical construct that is at odds with the mysterious nature of a sacrament.

However, after reading your article, I highly disagree with your premise. The bread and wine DO become the Body and Blood of Christ. Christ is really present - make no mistake about it.

O+

Your second paragraph seems to contradict your first paragraph. Oh well!

Besides, making categorical assertions doesn’t really mean anything unless you can back it up with sound arguments.

zerinus

 

[Tonks40]

That may indicate a valid symbolism, I agree. But that did not mean that Jesus’ words were meant to be taken literally.

zerinus

If that were the case, then would it stand to reason then that what Christ said about eating His flesh and drinking His blood really does nothing, and does not give eternal life to the partaker?

Like I said, the Jews at the time understood the sacrificial practices of the time of Moses. The high priests would eat of the sacrificial lamb in order to atone for the sins of the people. They believed that this practice actually DID something.

 

[teadough]

I am neither questioning the Atonement, nor Christ’s sacrifice, nor the symbolism of the Paschal Lamb, nor of the Passover, nor the fulfilling of it by Jesus Christ, nor the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper as a memorial of it. I am questioning the Transubstantiation, which is a completely different issue, unbiblical, and totally irrelevant to any of those things. Perhaps you hadn’t read my Blog article carefully enough. Maybe it would be a good idea to go and read it again before commenting.

zerinus

Actually, you are questioning the Atonement,Christ’s Sacrifice,Paschal Lamb,and Passover or anything else you want to throw into the mix. I have read your Blog and have not seen anything else that I would not have read or said myself when I was a Protestant(I know,I know…you’re not Protestant).

I guess what I am getting at is this: You have made up your mind no matter what anyone will tell you. I know how you feel,so don’t feel as though I am one of those Catholics that will get in a hissy. I will Love you and Pray for you no matter what choice you decide. All of Gods children deserve to be lifted up in prayer. And my prayer for you is that you will one day allow your heart to open up to the gentle persuasion of the Holy Spirit. May He guide you to the fullness of Truth so that your eyes will one day be opened.

Luke 24:30-31
And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them.
31
With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him

 

[zerinus]

Pls see here
about the euchrist turning to flesh.

“Blessed are those who have not seen yet believed”

This sounds bogus to me! This kind of thing can easily be staged. My objections to Transubstantiation are biblical, scriptural, and theological; it is not a question of “believing” or “not believing” something. The scriptures argue against it, period.

If it is a genuine miracle, and the symbols literally turned into flesh and blood, they should do so in an observable manner every time, not just when somebody allegedly “prayed” for it in 700.

zerinus

 

[maryj]

You’re forgetting something that the 1st century Jews would understand at the time Christ spoke those words in John 6. They saw this in the context of the foretelling of the Messiah as outlined in the Old Testament.

When Christ said that he was to be “eaten” this goes back to Jewish sacrificial practices outlined in Exodus, with Christ being the “sacrifice,” the paschal lamb. Read Exodus and Leviticus again to see the correlation before you come to your conclusion.

That may indicate a valid symbolism, I agree. But that did not mean that Jesus’ words were meant to be taken literally.

zerinus

symbolism? Oh really? So the Lord said to Moses andAaron in the land of Egypt," Tell the whole community of Israel" on the tenth of this month everyone of your families must procure for itself a lamb, one apiece for each household. If your household is too small, join with the nearest household, share the lamb. It must be a year old with no blemish, then with the assembly of Israel present, it shall be slaughtered during the evening twilight. Take the blood and apply it to the doorpost and lintel of every house that partakes of the lamb. That same night they shall EAT it’s flesh.
Not a symbol of it’s flesh, not some fish, not a cake made into the shape of a lamb, THE LAMB.
"For on the same night I will go through Egypt, striking down the first born of the land. But the blood will mark the houses where you are. Seeing the blood, I will pass over you.

No symbolism there, you either did what the Lord said or you woke up dead.

But Jesus’ words to “EAT” are to be taken as symbolic. The Paschal Lamb was “slaughtered” during the evening twilight. So let’s see, shall we take the words of our Lord that his Body and Blood are just a symbol? Hmmmm, seems we’ll wake up dead. Wanna talk about that “symbolic” Manna that the Lord sent to sustain the Israelites on their journey to the promised land(read heaven there)??

 

[PatrickJT914]

Oh I’m sorry people I didn’t realize this was a private thread!

 

[zerinus]

If that were the case, then would it stand to reason then that what Christ said about eating His flesh and drinking His blood really does nothing, and does not give eternal life to the partaker?

Not at all! Partaking of the Eucharist is a sacrament, like the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost; and as such it is able to impart grace. A sacrament is defined in the Catholic Church I believe as an “outward sign of inward grace,” and I accept that definition. Eating the bread and wine is the sign—just as laying on of hand is a sign. Performing that sign then enables one to receive grace. The turning of the bread and wine to flesh and blood is totally unnecessary for that sign to be present—which is eating of the bread and wine in remembrance of the sufferings of Christ.

Like I said, the Jews at the time understood the sacrificial practices of the time of Moses. The high priests would eat of the sacrificial lamb in order to atone for the sins of the people. They believed that this practice actually DID something.

You have misunderstood the Old Testament as well as the New. “Eating” of the sacrificial lamb was not the thing that made the atonement. It was the shedding of the blood of the sacrificial beast that did:

Leviticus 17:

11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

2 Chronicles 29:

24 And the priests killed them, and they made reconciliation with their blood upon the altar, to make an atonement for all Israel . . .

Hebrews 9:

22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

zerinus

 

[Harpazo]

I would argue against transubstantiation being used to describe what happens at the Table to the bread and win at the Eucharist - it is an Aristotelian philosophical construct that is at odds with the mysterious nature of a sacrament.

However, after reading your article, I highly disagree with your premise. **The bread and wine DO become the Body and Blood of Christ. Christ is really present - make no mistake about it.
**
O+

That IS Transubstantiation. You’re almost Catholic! The term was created to help those who couldn’t come to grips with what happened. That is all. I’m so perplexed why people always like to jump the gun on it, and immediately deny it because it sounds philosophical.

Do you argue against the Trinity? Philosophy has been used to justify it. One could rightly say that the Trinity is a philosophical construct used to explain God. Should we not be explaining a mystery?

What about the Hypostatic union? I suppose that’s too philosophical, too. Better just leave it as a mystery, right?

We have to understand that the West developed differently, because they had to face against different heretics than the east. These terms aren’t in opposition to God’s revelation to us, but help to give the only insight that they can give, because they are still mysteries, no doubt.

The Church as a whole developed these terms in opposition to heresies, and to help bolster the faith of the people, which it invariably did.

Al-Masih Qam!

Andrew

 

[Hisalone]

You’re forgetting something that the 1st century Jews would understand at the time Christ spoke those words in John 6. They saw this in the context of the foretelling of the Messiah as outlined in the Old Testament.

When Christ said that he was to be “eaten” this goes back to Jewish sacrificial practices outlined in Exodus, with Christ being the “sacrifice,” the paschal lamb. Read Exodus and Leviticus again to see the correlation before you come to your conclusion.

I know of no OT scriptures which foretell that the messaiah would be eaten nor is there any indication that is what the Jews understood when they heard John 6

 

[Harpazo]

Not at all! Partaking of the Eucharist is a sacrament, like the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost; and as such it is able to impart grace. A sacrament is defined in the Catholic Church I believe as an “outward sign of inward grace,” and I accept that definition. Eating the bread and wind is the sign—just as laying on of hand is a sign. Performing that sign then enables one to receive grace. The turning of the bread and wine to flesh and blood is totally unnecessary for that sign to be present—which is eating of the bread and wine in remembrance of the sufferings of Christ.

According to Pope Zerinus, right?

Christ said it, it happens. Period.

Did you know that the earliest Christians were arrested and killed because they were accused of Cannibalism? They knew what it meant, and so did those around them.

Al-Masih Qam!

Andrew