The Case Against Transubstantiation

  • Thread starter Thread starter zerinus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That refers to His sacrifice that gives eternal life to the world. We partake of that bread spiritually, when we believe in Him and obey His commandments, and receive the sacraments of His gospel. “Eating His flesh” is a hyperbole referring to partaking of that divine spiritual nourishment that the sacrifice of His flesh provides, contrasting it to the manna that Moses gave them in the wilderness. He was talking to a group of people that were carnal, and only understood nourishment in terms of eating something physically into your stomach, not as something to be received in the Spirit.

zerinus
that is a very prottestant interpretation. i would ask you the same question i’d ask any protestant who said the nearly identicle thing: what makes your interpretation better than the Catholic interpretation? where does your authority come from?
 
that is a very prottestant interpretation. i would ask you the same question i’d ask any protestant who said the nearly identicle thing: what makes your interpretation better than the Catholic interpretation? where does your authority come from?
Whether it is a “Protestant” interpretation or not I don’t know and don’t care. I did not obtain it from Protestantism. Our authority comes form modern revelation as well as from the Bible. Modern scripture enables us to understand the Bible more correctly and completely. Our authority also comes from the restored priesthood of the Church. It is not my authority. It is the Church’s authority.

zerinus
 
I presume you are referring to the scriptural passages that you had referenced (John 6:25-70). There He is having a conversation with the Jews about the “bread of life” that came down from heaven (meaning Himself), which bread, or manna, if anyone eat will live for ever (i.e. have eternal life); in contrast to the manna that Moses gave, which only made them live for a short period of time, but not forever. That manna was His flesh which He would give for the world (as a sacrifice for sin), thus becoming the “bread of life” that came down from heaven (like manna).
This seems to cover John 6:25-50
The key verse in that passage must be this one:

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

That refers to His sacrifice that gives eternal life to the world. We partake of that bread spiritually, when we believe in Him and obey His commandments, and receive the sacraments of His gospel. “Eating His flesh” is a hyperbole referring to partaking of that divine spiritual nourishment that the sacrifice of His flesh provides, contrasting it to the manna that Moses gave them in the wilderness. He was talking to a group of people that were carnal, and only understood nourishment in terms of eating something physically into your stomach, not as something to be received in the Spirit.
I’m not sure it is a key verse as much as a first verse of a sermon. What does he mean in John 6:53-58?
 
Okay, let me try to explain it this way: let’s suppose there are two people; one of them claims that he has the testimony of the Holy Ghost that Mormonism is true, and the other one says that he has the testimony of the Holy Ghost that Mormonism is false. Obviously both cannot be true. One or both of them could either be lying, or has been deceived.
I met a guy in the service that left Mormonism when he made this same realization. Mormons have a testimony and Christians have a testimony and facts.
You are the third person looking at these two, and trying to determine for yourself whether Mormonism is true or not. If you have the faith and conviction that it is possible to know divine truth by the power of the Holy Ghost (as the scriptures attest), you will seek to obtain that witness for yourself. When you have obtained it, then you are in a position to know for yourself who has been lying and who has been telling the truth.
I guess he did it the other way around. He found the truth which gave him a Christian witness.
 
See my thoughts on this here.

IOW - Christ wasn’t just talking about partaking in “His Spirit by faith” but as the Jews understood it in eating of the flesh of the lamb as given in the Passover meal and in the eating of the animal sacrifice described in Leviticus and Exodus.

Understanding what the listeners of Christ during the time in John 6 goes a long way in understanding how Christ really can be the in Eucharist.
I agree with you Tonks40: it is important to understand these first century Jews and fallen away disciples of Jesus from John 6…who were in the hearing of Jesus voice. A first century Jew would have understood Jesus, when he is referred to as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. These being of the first covenant, of the natural law, or of the flesh. Know very well that Jesus was speaking literally about his flesh and blood to consume them, in order to have life. That is why they state, who can accept this hard saying? ( like some do here, they cannot accept Jesus words here) These fallen away disciples left Jesus who was going to introduce the New Covenant ( which is spiritual and eternal or everlasting) to their former way of living which was the old covenant. That is why Jesus states the words he speaks are Spirit and the Spirit gives life, for the flesh is of no avail.

Jesus in John 6 states much about Moses and the old covenant. Jesus was asked earlier on “what must we do” Jesus gets to the bread of life discourse, and tells the old (flesh) covenant people, what they must do to have eternal life. First, Jesus has to die, to free us from the old covenant natural law, and then we have to consume the body, blood of Jesus in order to have eternal life.( I would like to note here that this Lamb sacrifice is to be a perpetual sacrifice ACCORDING TO THE LAW AND THE COVENANT of God himself, Jesus makes it an eternal perpetual sacrifice, and fulfills this old covenant law.)
That is why Jesus had to die. To free all of humanity from the old (flesh) covenant that condemns humanity to death.
Where the old covenant required an animal sacrifice and then consumed by the reciepients of God’s forgiveness. Now the New and everlasting covenant, is not of the flesh but of the Spirit that gives life, to the one who eats Jesus body and drinks his blood will have eternal life.

But in order for the old covenant people to come out of the flesh or natural covenant, they must consume the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Jesus is preparing them for when he institutes the Eucharist at the last supper, at Passover, which is Jesus the Lamb of God, who passes us over from death into eternal life in his body, blood, soul and divinity, The blessed Sacrament in the Eucharist fulfills this old covenant eternally in his body and blood sacrifice for our sins once and for all.

There has not been any one on these forums including Z that cannot explain the word Spirit and flesh, without coming out of context, or attempting to enter a symbolic meaning of the word Spirit from scripture which does not exist or never has there been a rendering of a symbolic Spirit in scripture.

What is beautiful about God’s word, is that it never ends, it applies the same to the first century believers as it does today. Transubstantiation, does not define the Eucharist mystery as far as knowledge is concerned, for it is suspended between comprehension and incomprehension, transubstantiation calls us to apprehend Jesus in faith in his body, blood, soul and divinity. The flesh is of no avail here, for it is the Spirit that gives life. A symbolic Jesus or symbolic rendering of the word Spirit cannot give life.
 
Hyperbole is a form of exageration for effect or emphasis. John 6 is a chapter, not a verse; not all of it is hyperbole. John 6:53-57 is what we were talking about here, and that is a good example of hyperbole.

zerinus
I know what hyperbole is. 53-57 are hyperbole for you. Now go to John 6: 60-64.
When speaking of the spirit that gives life He is talking of something that cannot be seen yet produces everything we see with the senses that we consider living. When we are made new in Christ we still look the same to others but we are profoundly changed. If I say I have been born again is that hyperbole?
 
I agree with you Tonks40: it is important to understand these first century Jews and fallen away disciples of Jesus from John 6…who were in the hearing of Jesus voice. A first century Jew would have understood Jesus, when he is referred to as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. These being of the first covenant, of the natural law, or of the flesh. Know very well that Jesus was speaking literally about his flesh and blood to consume them, in order to have life. That is why they state, who can accept this hard saying? ( like some do here, they cannot accept Jesus words here) These fallen away disciples left Jesus who was going to introduce the New Covenant ( which is spiritual and eternal or everlasting) to their former way of living which was the old covenant. That is why Jesus states the words he speaks are Spirit and the Spirit gives life, for the flesh is of no avail.

Jesus in John 6 states much about Moses and the old covenant. Jesus was asked earlier on “what must we do” Jesus gets to the bread of life discourse, and tells the old (flesh) covenant people, what they must do to have eternal life. First, Jesus has to die, to free us from the old covenant natural law, and then we have to consume the body, blood of Jesus in order to have eternal life.( I would like to note here that this Lamb sacrifice is to be a perpetual sacrifice ACCORDING TO THE LAW AND THE COVENANT of God himself, Jesus makes it an eternal perpetual sacrifice, and fulfills this old covenant law.)
That is why Jesus had to die. To free all of humanity from the old (flesh) covenant that condemns humanity to death.
Where the old covenant required an animal sacrifice and then consumed by the reciepients of God’s forgiveness. Now the New and everlasting covenant, is not of the flesh but of the Spirit that gives life, to the one who eats Jesus body and drinks his blood will have eternal life.

But in order for the old covenant people to come out of the flesh or natural covenant, they must consume the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Jesus is preparing them for when he institutes the Eucharist at the last supper, at Passover, which is Jesus the Lamb of God, who passes us over from death into eternal life in his body, blood, soul and divinity, The blessed Sacrament in the Eucharist fulfills this old covenant eternally in his body and blood sacrifice for our sins once and for all.

There has not been any one on these forums including Z that cannot explain the word Spirit and flesh, without coming out of context, or attempting to enter a symbolic meaning of the word Spirit from scripture which does not exist or never has there been a rendering of a symbolic Spirit in scripture.

What is beautiful about God’s word, is that it never ends, it applies the same to the first century believers as it does today. Transubstantiation, does not define the Eucharist mystery as far as knowledge is concerned, for it is suspended between comprehension and incomprehension, transubstantiation calls us to apprehend Jesus in faith in his body, blood, soul and divinity. The flesh is of no avail here, for it is the Spirit that gives life. A symbolic Jesus or symbolic rendering of the word Spirit cannot give life.
God Bless you, Gabriel of 12 - you’ve explained this much more eloquently than I could ever do!

Zerinus - I am curious to see your response to this. Does this help shed some light on the subject?
 
God Bless you, Gabriel of 12 - you’ve explained this much more eloquently than I could ever do!

Zerinus - I am curious to see your response to this. Does this help shed some light on the subject?
I totally agree with you about Gabriel’s statement. Absolutely perfect expression through the Spirit working in him. Thank you so much.
 
At the Last Supper Jesus broke the bread and said “this is my body”. He didn’t say “this is a symbol of my body” or “this is something we’re using instead of my body”. It was the same with the wine. He said “This is my blood”.

And after He gave these blessings He issued a commandment that we do this, and do it often. It wasn’t a suggestion, it was a directive. That is why we have the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ at Mass.

There is no case against Transubstantiation unless, of course either
  1. You’re talking about a DIFFERENT Jesus Christ (which is the case with some ersatz Christians)
    or
  2. You’re asserting that Jesus Christ was not telling the truth when he instituted the Eucharist
 
This seems to cover John 6:25-50

I’m not sure it is a key verse as much as a first verse of a sermon. What does he mean in John 6:53-58?
I think that has already been answered. It means partaking of his life-giving sacrifice by His Spirit through faith.

zerinus
 
I met a guy in the service that left Mormonism when he made this same realization. Mormons have a testimony and Christians have a testimony and facts.

I guess he did it the other way around. He found the truth which gave him a Christian witness.
And we come across thousands every day who read the Book of Mormon and gain the testimony of the Holy Ghost that it is true, and join our Church.

zerinus
 
And we come across thousands every day who read the Book of Mormon and gain the testimony of the Holy Ghost that it is true, and join our Church.

zerinus
Unfortunately it’s a different “Holy Ghost” than the One that communicates with Christians…
 
“Born again” is actually a good example of Jesus’ didactic and rhetorical style of teaching. Let’s quote the verses:

John 3:

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Jesus knew that the phrase “born again” was going to confuse Nicodemus. If He had wanted to he could have used a less confusing terminology to teach Nicodemus the same concept. But He seemed to like using a language that provoked them into a kind of “lateral thinking”. That is how He liked to teach.

zerinus
 
God Bless you, Gabriel of 12 - you’ve explained this much more eloquently than I could ever do!

Zerinus - I am curious to see your response to this. Does this help shed some light on the subject?
No, it doesn’t. He likes writing long rambling posts that rehashes the same old tired arguments that have been addressed many times before.

zerinus
 
No, it doesn’t. He likes writing long rambling posts that rehashes the same old tired arguments that have been addressed many times before.

zerinus
I’m sorry to hear that you feel that Gabriel of 12’s post ramble. I’m not sure what you are objecting to here in this explanation, and how you feel that this is an “old tired argument.” Is it the pre-figurement aspect as presented in the Old Testament, Jewish understanding of sacrifice?>>>>>>
Or would just rather not comment and continue with your circular and unsubstantiated arguments?
(wait, don’t tell me…I think I know already…😃 )

God bless.
 
I’m sorry to hear that you feel that Gabriel of 12’s post ramble. I’m not sure what you are objecting to here in this explanation, and how you feel that this is an “old tired argument.” Is it the pre-figurement aspect as presented in the Old Testament, Jewish understanding of sacrifice?>>>>>>
Or would just rather not comment and continue with your circular and unsubstantiated arguments?
Glad you figured it out. Thank you.

zerinus
 
Hmmmm, I think it is more likely to be the other way.

zerinus
There is one Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit that communicates with Christians. If there is a Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit that communicates with Mormons, it is a different entity from the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit that communicates with Christians.

Your statement “I think it is more likely to the other way” is unclear. But there is no lack of clarity in the nature of the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit that communicates with Christians. It is different from any Mormon one.
 
Whether it is a “Protestant” interpretation or not I don’t know and don’t care. I did not obtain it from Protestantism. Our authority comes form modern revelation as well as from the Bible. Modern scripture enables us to understand the Bible more correctly and completely. Our authority also comes from the restored priesthood of the Church. It is not my authority. It is the Church’s authority.

zerinus
The “authority” of a “church” that sprang into being in the 19th century?

I do not wish to sound unkind, but your church has no authority, is a cult, and exists only on the supposition that Jesus is a liar who cannot keep his promises.

Tell us, then. If the church and priesthood were restored in the 19th century, when did they first apostatize? Even an approximate year will do.

Also, why should we even believe you when you claim “authority” for the Book of Mormon, the Mormon “church,” and even the Bible? You claim no authority for yourself but for your church but why should we believe them either?
 
And we come across thousands every day who read the Book of Mormon and gain the testimony of the Holy Ghost that it is true, and join our Church.

zerinus
Because they didn’t know any better that the Book of Mormon is a fraudulent piece of writing with absolutely no critical manuscript evidence whatsoever and relying on “testimonies” of “witnesses” without anyone alive ever seeing the so-called “plates” we’re supposed to swallow.

I have read your Book of Mormon as published by your “church”, and it’s laughable.

What can you do or say to convince us otherwise?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top