The Case Against Transubstantiation

  • Thread starter Thread starter zerinus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Participating in the Eucharist unworthily courts damnation. That’s in the Bible. That’s why we have the sacrament of reconciliation. The worthiness of the recipient has no bearing on the nature of the elements of the Eucharist.
 
PetersKeys said:
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
Click to expand...
You cannot conduct a serious theological discussion on the basis of supposed miracles. As I mentioned once before, during the Islamic Revolution hundreds of thousands of Iranians thought they saw the image of the late Ayatollah Khomeini on the moon. So are you now going to become a Shiite Moslem or what?

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
“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
Click to expand...
The word Jesus used was ''Anothen" which has a double meaning, born from above, or born again. Nicodemus chose to use the latter meaning. Jesus spoke in parables true, but he does not speak words to decieve anyone, God cannot decieve. It is the hearer that decieves himself from truth. The hearing will grasp Jesus words from the flesh, when Jesus is speaking about eternal realities, that the flesh is unable to comprehend. This takes faith in Jesus thus transubstantiation. When Jesus spoke in parables he explained his teaching to his old covenant (flesh) thinking disciples, But these are his chosen ones. so Jesus clarifies these spiritual realities of his kingdom to his chosen. If you cant grasp the meaning of Jesus words, maybe you are not chosen z by God. Something to ponder?

Those who can hear what the spirit says, believe and are chosen by God. But then you believe in a symbolic spirit that does not exist. Because if you believed in the Spirit that Jesus was talking about in John 6, you would be abel to have faith in Jesus words, not contradict the Lord’s teaching, about eating his flesh and drinking his blood literally.

Jesus left us a teacher here on earth, The teacher he tells us in Johns Gospel, when Jesus commands Peter to feed, teach and love his sheep, and it is the Holy Spirit through the Church of St. Peter that recalls and revealsl all that Jesus taught and promised. I dont think God would allow 1800 years to go by without a teaching authority on earth, through his Holy Catholic Apostolic faith.

Forgive me if I am rambling to you. their is much I would love to explain here. Peace be with you, and may God keep you in his
hand.
 
Stephen168 said:
I’ll take that as a “no, I can not explain why Christ continues to speak hyperbolically after John 6:52.”
Click to expand...
He doesn’t. In verse 63 He gives the final and definitive explanation of what He is talking about; and in verse 64 He reverts to the essential requirement of faith in Him once more.

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

zerinus
Click to expand...
My apologies if someone already asked this of you, but, what words of Jesus should we take literally and which are only symbolic. For example, when He said no greater love is there than to lay down your life for another, that was just a symbol, right?

Also, many people left after he taught them about eating His Flesh saying it was too difficult to understand, why didn’t Jesus stop them?
 
MementoMori3283 said:
My apologies if someone already asked this of you, but, what words of Jesus should we take literally and which are only symbolic. For example, when He said no greater love is there than to lay down your life for another, that was just a symbol, right?
Click to expand...
You tell me! He also said: “ye strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel,” He meant that literally, right?
Also, many people left after he taught them about eating His Flesh saying it was too difficult to understand, why didn’t Jesus stop them?
Click to expand...
He did try to stop them; but Jesus also sometimes made deliberately provocative comments of this kind to sift those who believed in Him from those that did not. The context of that passage makes all of that clear:

John 6:

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

This is where Jesus tries to stop them (those that really believed in Him) from leaving Him, by giving them the correct explanation. But there were also those who did not really believe; therefore they left anyway. His provocative remarks had had the desired effect. He kept those that really believed in Him; and expelled those that did not:

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

By His provocative remarks Jesus had kept those of His disciples that really believed in Him, and got rid of those that did not.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
You tell me! He also said: “ye strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel,” He meant that literally, right?

He did try to stop them; but Jesus also sometimes made deliberately provocative comments of this kind to sift those who believed in Him from those that did not. The context of that passage makes all of that clear:

John 6:

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

This is where Jesus tries to stop them (those that really believed in Him) from leaving Him, by giving them the correct explanation. But there were also those who did not really believe; therefore they left anyway. His provocative remarks had had the desired effect. He kept those that really believed in Him; and expelled those that did not:

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

By His provocative remarks Jesus had kept those of His disciples that really believed in Him, and got rid of those that did not.

zerinus
Click to expand...
;

with all due respect, i have never seen such a lack of discernment.
 
wisdomseeker said:
;

i have never seen such a lack of discernment.
Click to expand...
Mormons often know very little about their own religion, much less about anyone else’s. Some are well versed in the stock answers of their faith, but are unable to engage in an actual discussion.

Many Mormons are amazingly unfamiliar with even the “basics” outside of their own faith. I remember a situation once where, within an entire group of Mormons, not one of them knew that “Eastern Orthodox” was NOT synonymous with “Orthodox Jew”. They also thought that genuflecting was making the sign of the cross. I learned not to make any assumptions about common understanding of ANYTHING.
 
zerinus said:
It is!

3 Nephi 18:
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.D&C 46: zerinusIs this not a simple paraphrase of Saint Paul in 1 Corinthians? He believed in, and practiced the act of God which has come to be known as transubstantiation. But, how can Jesus be speaking “symbolically” is John 6, yet you believe in some form of real presence? This makes no sense, does it? This almost appears to be hedging a bet, playing both sides, the real presence and symbolic, depending upon who you are speaking with. ??? :confused:
​
Click to expand...
​
 
I’m not sure the Mormon understanding of/belief in transubstantiation is particularly material in view of the fact that their understanding of the nature of God is so different from any other Christian understanding.

When your theology says that Jesus isn’t the same as God, does it really matter whether or not the body and blood of Jesus Christ is merely symbolic?
 
MelanieAnne said:
Mormons often know very little about their own religion, much less about anyone else’s. Some are well versed in the stock answers of their faith, but are unable to engage in an actual discussion.

Many Mormons are amazingly unfamiliar with even the “basics” outside of their own faith. I remember a situation once where, within an entire group of Mormons, not one of them knew that “Eastern Orthodox” was NOT synonymous with “Orthodox Jew”. They also thought that genuflecting was making the sign of the cross. I learned not to make any assumptions about common understanding of ANYTHING.
Click to expand...
I have found that this is generally true of most Catholics, also.
 
MelanieAnne said:
I’m not sure the Mormon understanding of/belief in transubstantiation is particularly material in view of the fact that their understanding of the nature of God is so different from any other Christian understanding.
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking, the LDS are pseudo-Christian, since their concept of Christ is at odds with both scripture and mainstream Christian belief. This does not mean they are not well-intended, nor does it mean that they are insincere. It simply means they are wrong.

Christ’s peace.
 
po18guy said:
Strictly speaking, the LDS are pseudo-Christian, since their concept of Christ is at odds with both scripture and mainstream Christian belief. This does not mean they are not well-intended, nor does it mean that they are insincere. It simply means they are wrong.

Christ’s peace.
Click to expand...
OK, so they’re pseudo-Christian.

My point is that no matter what they are called, whether or not they believe in the Real Presence seems rather inconsequential, in view of all of the other aberrant doctrines they have.

Or put another way, even if they accepted the Real Presence, it would make no difference because they are not truly Christian anyway. When I realized this, it seemed to be pointless to have a discussion about the pertinence to Mormonism of the concept of the Real Presence.
 
HashemEchad said:
I have found that this is generally true of most Catholics, also.
Click to expand...
Wow, a Jewish person comes to a Catholic Apologetics forum and tells us we don’t know much about our religion. What secret exactly is the CC holding back until after the converts have converted to the cult?

BTW, I know plenty of Jewish people, who belong synagogue and are atheist. :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top