The Case Against Transubstantiation

[Stephen168]

I think that has already been answered. It means partaking of his life-giving sacrifice by His Spirit through faith.

That isn’t clear to me. I don’t see the word faith used at all between John 6:51 and John 6:58

If I told a guy ‘I was so hungry I could eat a horse,’ then I noticed he as confused; I would have made myself clear.

Why did Jesus keep speaking in hyperbole after John 6:52?

 

[ctlw83]

Your words and opinions are not those of Jesus Christ. What we believe comes from Him.

zerinus.

I never saw anything in the Bible about a “spirit of restoration” to renew the Church, except of that of the Holy Spirit which was given to the Apostles on Pentecost.

Where is this other spirit you speak of?

 

[ctlw83]

I think I am done with this thread. This isn’t to say that I surrender my beliefs or that I think Zerinus is correct. It is that no matter what argument, new or old, that we put forth, he answers those with a circular logic that we cannot break.

Here are the reasons why:

His belief is that the Church from the first century onward was Apostate and that the TRUE church only showed up after Luther and Calvin. No facts, historical or Biblical will change his mind on this.

Therefore if all of what the Church said from the first century onward is Apostate, he does not have to regard any of it as a valid argument, and even if he does, he can simply say that his interpretation is correct because we are Apostate, and he has the truth because he is not Apostate.

Again, I don’t agree with this but, he is entitled to believe as he wishes, as are we.

We have presented plenty of valid arguments from our point of view, to which he has refuted them with points from his point of view. If we bring up something he thinks he has already addressed he refers us back to his blog or post that he feels addresses it.

While we don’t agree with his arguments, and don’t see them as the Truth as we feel that our evidence is stronger and more centered around the understanding of the times and peoples Jesus was speaking to in the Bible, again, they are his arguments and his beliefs.

We cannot change beliefs here, we can only present our side of the story and then say “God Bless You” and let him decide what he wants to believe. The only one who can change hearts is God himself.

So Zerinus, at this point I thank you for your arguments, your patience and your kindness. You have given us insight into Mormonism and we have told you what we believe. Therefore, everything this thread needs to accomplish, has been accomplished. The Holy Spirit will inspire the Truth, no matter which side it is on.

It was an enjoyable thread and I did rack my brain a few times. However, I still believe in my Catholic faith, just as you believe in your Mormon faith. There is nothing that will change that, except for God himself in either case.

God Bless,
Chris

 

[po18guy]

In those verses Paul is using the same figurative language that Jesus was using; but the context of what he says makes it clear that it was not meant to be taken literally.

zerinus

Where does it say he is using such language? How does a Mormon eat and drink damnation unto himself by “unworthily” eating plain food? It’s not in the BOM anywhere.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Chris, you are a model of charity

 

[Tonks40]

Chris, you are a model of charity

He definitely is.

For others - this thread has served as an excellent exercise in apologetics. Next time zerinus asks us to “tell him what we think” about his blog posts, be forewarned that he really ***doesn’t ***want to know what we think.

 

[MelanieAnne]

He definitely is.

For others - this thread has served as an excellent exercise in apologetics. Next time zerinus asks us to “tell him what we think” about his blog posts, be forewarned that he really ***doesn’t ***want to know what we think.

Hi Tonks40,

Yeah, I know he doesn’t really want to know, although he sure does hang around here a lot, and why anyone would do that and not want to learn something is a mystery. So yeah, it’s a waste of time and effort, but sometimes I guess we just can’t help ourselves. We ARE called to tell the Truth about Jesus Christ at every Mass…

 

[Stephen168]

That is your opinion. I have given valid reasons for my beleifs. They have not been refuted.

Just declaring an apostasy so, seems to be a popular strategy with you for good reason, but I think you being less than honest.

They were refuted
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3551025&postcount=67

 

[wisdomseeker]

Then you need to back it up with “genuine” Christian history. Of course “genuine” Christian history will indicate clearly when the great apostasy took place.

Where is it, please? I just want that event and the year it took place. And of course, it must be verifiable by unbiased secular authorities, i.e. neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Mormon. Because fact is fact regardless of religion. Such is the nature of historical study.

It is a funny thing that all these so called churches all fighting to take the place of the CC. protestants says the CC went into apostasy, mormons do the same. what it is more amazing is that the CC still here and they continue to deny her existence. Aren’t they fighting against Our Lord? should we believe on the mormons or protestants? up for grabs.

 

[MelanieAnne]

It is a funny thing that all these so called churches all fighting to take the place of the CC. protestants says the CC went into apostasy, mormons do the same. what it is more amazing is that the CC still here and they continue to deny her existence. Aren’t they fighting against Our Lord? should we believe on the mormons or protestants? up for grabs.

Jesus made us a promise. To believe Mormon theology is to believe that Jesus did not keep His word.

I trust Jesus, the one we know from the New Testament. Bottom line, the Mormons don’t, at least they don’t trust the same Jesus Christ that we worship. I’m beginning to think that they are not one and the same.

 

[Anthony02]

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

Your blog has no purpose to me as what you say is of your own opinion and interpretation. I don’t read anti Catholic ****. Sorry.

 

[Anthony02]

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

That’s not how God works. Where in scripture does it argue against transubstanciation?

 

[MelanieAnne]

That’s not how God works. Where in scripture does it argue against transubstanciation?

Biblical scripture does not argue against it, it argues for it. Those that say that Biblical scripture argues against it are either ignorant of scripture or are misreading it (or perhaps reading something into it that isn’t there.) Jesus Christ proclaimed it Himself in the Gospel. He didn’t say it was a symbol. He said it was His Body and Blood. To say otherwise is to assert that Jesus deliberately misled the Apostles. He didn’t. It’s really very simple because Jesus was very straightforward on this point. It’s curious that some people seem to want to make it so difficult.

But you cannot tell anything to people who refuse to listen.

 

[PetersKeys]

No, Jesus’ presence in the sacrament is spiritual. That does not mean that His Spirit is physically present inside the bread and wine. It means that we receive spiritual grace from Him as we participate in the Sacrament with a good conscience in faith. The situation is the same as in baptism. When we participate by faith in the sacrament of baptism, we receive spiritual grace from the Lord independent of the actual water that touches our bodies. This is how St Peter describes the blessing we receive at baptism:

1 Peter 3:

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

In other words, the actually water of the baptism does not do anything for us. What makes the difference is “the answer of a good conscience toward God”. Similarly, the actual bread and wine of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper does not do anything to us; but “the answer of a good conscience toward God” does.

zerinus

I noticed you conviently igorned my post about euchairstic miracles where the host does turn into actual flesh and blood.

Here, I’ll repost it for you so you don’t convienently ignore it again

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle

P.S.- I declare the Church became apostate in AD 90! yes, and it is apostate until I came onto the scene in AD 2008! Yes friends, that means for almost 2000 years every christian did it wrong and was an apostate until I was born and was able to find these gold plates hidden in the ground. Even through the Holy Spirit said he would be with the Church forever, I ignore that and still objectifly that it became apostate and I was needed to restore the church. Because I am special like that and angels tell me where secret hidden treasures are of lost gospels. Even though it makes no sense for Christs Church to become apostate because of Christs promises that he will be with us forever, I still ignore that and insist that I am the true restorator of the Church and christians only born after the year 2008 can be part of the true Church. Yes friends that is true. And no, I am not speaking from pride, even though God chose me. cough

 

[zerinus]

That isn’t clear to me. I don’t see the word faith used at all between John 6:51 and John 6:58

If I told a guy ‘I was so hungry I could eat a horse,’ then I noticed he as confused; I would have made myself clear.

Why did Jesus keep speaking in hyperbole after John 6:52?

You are being highly selective in your choice of context, which is not very clever:

John 6:

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

---

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

---

40 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: and I will raise him up at the last day.

41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

---

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48 I am that bread of life.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I never saw anything in the Bible about a “spirit of restoration” to renew the Church, except of that of the Holy Spirit which was given to the Apostles on Pentecost.

Where is this other spirit you speak of?

I never said anything about the “spirit” of the restoration. But the restoration of the gospel in the latter days is prophesied of in the Bible:

Acts 3:

20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I think I am done with this thread. This isn’t to say that I surrender my beliefs or that I think Zerinus is correct. It is that no matter what argument, new or old, that we put forth, he answers those with a circular logic that we cannot break.

Here are the reasons why:

His belief is that the Church from the first century onward was Apostate and that the TRUE church only showed up after Luther and Calvin. No facts, historical or Biblical will change his mind on this.

Therefore if all of what the Church said from the first century onward is Apostate, he does not have to regard any of it as a valid argument, and even if he does, he can simply say that his interpretation is correct because we are Apostate, and he has the truth because he is not Apostate.

Again, I don’t agree with this but, he is entitled to believe as he wishes, as are we.

We have presented plenty of valid arguments from our point of view, to which he has refuted them with points from his point of view. If we bring up something he thinks he has already addressed he refers us back to his blog or post that he feels addresses it.

While we don’t agree with his arguments, and don’t see them as the Truth as we feel that our evidence is stronger and more centered around the understanding of the times and peoples Jesus was speaking to in the Bible, again, they are his arguments and his beliefs.

We cannot change beliefs here, we can only present our side of the story and then say “God Bless You” and let him decide what he wants to believe. The only one who can change hearts is God himself.

So Zerinus, at this point I thank you for your arguments, your patience and your kindness. You have given us insight into Mormonism and we have told you what we believe. Therefore, everything this thread needs to accomplish, has been accomplished. The Holy Spirit will inspire the Truth, no matter which side it is on.

It was an enjoyable thread and I did rack my brain a few times. However, I still believe in my Catholic faith, just as you believe in your Mormon faith. There is nothing that will change that, except for God himself in either case.

God Bless,
Chris

Thank you. It is a pleasure to discuss the gospel with you. God bless you too.

zerinus

 

[Stephen168]

If I told a guy ‘I was so hungry I could eat a horse,’ then I noticed he as confused; I would have made myself clear.

Why did Jesus keep speaking in hyperbole after John 6:52?

You are being highly selective in your choice of context, which is not very clever:

John 6:

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

---

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

---

40 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: and I will raise him up at the last day.

41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

---

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48 I am that bread of life.

None of your highly selective verse were after 6:52?

Does this mean you have no answer?

 

[zerinus]

Where does it say he is using such language? How does a Mormon eat and drink damnation unto himself by “unworthily” eating plain food? It’s not in the BOM anywhere.

It is!

3 Nephi 18:

27 Behold verily, verily, I say unto you, I give unto you another commandment, and then I must go unto my Father that I may fulfil other commandments which he hath given me.

28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;

29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

30 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood.

D&C 46:

4 Ye are also commanded not to cast any one who belongeth to the church out of your sacrament meetings; nevertheless, if any have trespassed, let him not partake until he makes reconciliation.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

If I told a guy ‘I was so hungry I could eat a horse,’ then I noticed he as confused; I would have made myself clear.

Why did Jesus keep speaking in hyperbole after John 6:52?

None of your highly selective verse were after 6:52?

Does this mean you have no answer?

Your answer has been given, and will not be given again.

zerinus