The Case Against Transubstantiation

[qui_est_ce]

Its not that we as Jews REFUSE to see in our own Scriptures what Christians see. We feel Christians chose to believe in Jesus (and everything that entails), and then chose to* look back* to our Scriptures to find justification for their beliefs.

That is partially true. Jesus and His disciples were Jews and quoted often from Scripture. Many quotes have the tag “he said this, or he did this so that the Scripture (x) would be fulfilled.” Jesus dying words on the cross, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me are from Psalm 22 (I know you knew that)!

They have no choice, really, if they want to continue in their faith, because everyone knows Christianity evolved out of Judaism. Judaism and our Scriptures are like the foundation, and Christianity is the house. If the “foundation” cannot be firmly established, what then happens to the “house”?

Salvation comes from the Jews. But it is not a matter of “no choice” it is a fact that Judaism is the foundation of Christianity. We joyfully embrace our Jewish heritage.

This is why the early Christians were so annoyed that Judaism overwhelmingly rejected their new messiah…because it cast doubts upon their own new religion. I’[m sure pagans taunted the early Christians with things such as, “Sure your messiah is true. Is that why his own people rejected him?”

Early Christians were not “annoyed.” They were preaching in the synagogues and trying to preach the joyful message of Jesus. For this they were persecuted and stoned to death by Saul and others. (Stephan, the first martyr). It was in fact the Jews who were “annoyed” because the legitimacy of their authority was being threatened.

Acts 13:
*
14
They continued on from Perga and reached Antioch in Pisidia. On the sabbath they entered (into) the synagogue and took their seats
15 After the reading of the law and the prophets, the synagogue officials sent word to them, “My brothers, if one of you has a word of exhortation for the people, please speak.”
16
So Paul got up, motioned with his hand, and said, "Fellow Israelites and you others who are God-fearing, listen.
17
The God of this people Israel chose our ancestors and exalted the people during their sojourn in the land of Egypt. With uplifted arm he led them out of it
18
and for about forty years he put up with 8 them in the desert.
19
When he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he gave them their land as an inheritance
32
We ourselves are **proclaiming this good news ***to you that what God promised our ancestors
33
he has brought to fulfillment for us, (their) children, by raising up Jesus, as it is written in the second psalm, ‘You are my son; this day I have begotten you.’
34
And that he raised him from the dead never to return to corruption he declared in this way, ‘I shall give you the benefits assured to David.’
35
That is why he also says in another psalm, ‘You will not suffer your holy one to see corruption.’
43
After the congregation had dispersed, many Jews and worshipers who were converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who spoke to them and urged them to remain faithful to the grace of God.
44
On the following sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord.

HashemEchad:

I can only tell you that I have read the Hebrew Scriptures in the original Hebrew

I wish I could do that! ,

and cannot see what you all see. Its just not there. Its not about blindness, or “being veiled”, or anything else triumphalists charge.

Its just. not. there.

Are the Orthodox Jews still awaiting the coming of the Messiah?
[/QUOTE]

 

[Tonks40]

That raises some puzzling questions for me. I understand what “Body and Blood” means (Transubstantiation). But what is “His whole Divinity” and “the whole Christ”? How are “His whole Divinity” and the “whole of Christ” present in the bread and wine? And how do you literally eat the “whole of Christ” together with the “whole of His Divinity” all in one go? That takes some eating! I know in the NT some people swallowed up whole camels; but even they didn’t attempt to swallow up the whole of Christ and His Divinity all at once. So how do Catholics go about exactly doing that?

The Methodists appear to have been the wisest of them all. They have tried to cover their backs by calling it a “Holy Mystery”! I quite agree. It is a mystery to me at least, and I think to everyone! Well, since every church has its own definition of Real Presence, I am willing to accept Real Presence in LDS theology provided that I can define the terms of it myself. But Transubstantiation, no way!

zerinus

With your rejection of the Divine Presence in the Eucharist, this in essence is rejecting the Divinity of Christ (which, correct me if I’m wrong, LDS theology does) as One of the Holy Trinity.

We cannot separate the two natures of Christ…this demeans who He is. Why would we want to downplay or reject HIs Divine Nature in the Eucharist?

And yes, Catholics do admit that the Real Presence in the Eucharist is a Holy Mystery (it is acknowledged in the Mass). We have just provided this Mystery in a word that is at the rawest of ever-inadequate human language.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Are you done or do you have anything more to say?

zerinus

Something is “done” when the cooking or baking process is complete. For example when it has been baked, a cake can be described as “done”. Unless there are cannibals around, a person cannot be “done”, and if they were “done”, you couldn’t ask them as they would be dead. In general, a person cannot be “done”, but at the conclusion of some process they may be “finished”.

If you are asking me whether I am finished reading posts that are snide, rude, and a variety of other characteristics that add up to tedious and unproductive, then the answer is yes. I wish such posts would come with a warning label, but perhaps they do…

I trust the readers of this thread will find it illustrative that when you mix up terms and are told about it, you do not seek information to remedy the situation, but instead react with immaturity and rudeness. It doesn’t strengthen your case.

 

[Stephen168]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3567945&postcount=492

The reason is that in Catholic theology, Real Presence and Transubstantiation are one and the same.

Incorrect
Let’s try an analogy:
Water plus heat makes steam
Water (bread & wine) plus heat (transubstantiation) makes steam (Body and Blood of Christ-‘Real Presence’)

To reject Transubstantiation would amount to rejecting Real Presence. Here are some quotes.

Incorrect
The Orthodox know the truth of the Real Presence but reject transubstantiation.

 

[zerinus]

Its not that we as Jews REFUSE to see in our own Scriptures what Christians see. We feel Christians chose to believe in Jesus (and everything that entails), and then chose to* look back* to our Scriptures to find justification for their beliefs.

That is not true actually. Most of those Old Testament references to Jesus and His mission on earth are given in the New Testament itself, and most of them are direct quotes from Jesus Himself. Christians did not say, “Here is Jesus, let’s find references to Him in the Old Testament”. It was Jesus Himself who said, “I am the one whom those Old Testament prophecies were talking about”.

I don’t mean to offend, but I think Christians see what they want to when they read our Scriptures. They have no choice, really, if they want to continue in their faith, because everyone knows Christianity evolved out of Judaism. Judaism and our Scriptures are like the foundation, and Christianity is the house. If the “foundation” cannot be firmly established, what then happens to the “house”?

I wouldn’t put it that way. The “foundation” is Jesus Himself. He is the Rock on which both Judaism and Christianity are built. The difference is that the Jews anciently rejected that foundation, therefore their hose was destroyed; whereas the Christians accepted Him, therefore their house was built up. I don’t question Christian indebtedness to the scriptural and prophetic heritage of the Jews; but that does not translate into the Orthodox Judaism of today.

This is why the early Christians were so annoyed that Judaism overwhelmingly rejected their new messiah…because it cast doubts upon their own new religion. I’[m sure pagans taunted the early Christians with things such as, “Sure your messiah is true. Is that why his own people rejected him?”

I can’t accept that at all. If anything, it were the Jews that were highly annoyed at the acceptance of Jesus by their own fellow Jews; and even more so afterwards by the Gentiles! If not, why did they persecute them so much? Why did they go mad at the suggestion of the gospel going to the Gentiles? Do you recall the trial of Stephen for example, and how he was stoned to death? Do you recall how Paul was hated and persecuted by the Jews for his preaching the gospel to the Gentiles? Do you recall how they went mad when he told them that God had commanded him to take the gospel to the Gentiles? All the “annoyance” was coming from the Jews, not the Christians. The Christians were just minding their own business.

zerinus
[/quote]

 

[qui_est_ce]

How will we know the true Messiah? We have something now called DNA which makes it all very scientific. They have discovered the genetic markers in Jews with the surnames Cohen, Cohn, Kahn, etc, thereby establishing that they are in fact lineally descended from Aaron, the first Kohain. The same can be done for proving Messianic lineage.

Is it possible that the Messiah came before the discovery of DNA?

In addition, the (Orthodox) rabbis maintain the records which would show who the Messiah is. We know one thing for sure: he MUST be PHYSICALLY descended from the line of King David on his father’s side, in order to be the legitimate Jewish Messiah.

Jesus is from the lineage of David. Matthew takes great pains to show this.

Matt 1:
*1
The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
2
Abraham became the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers.
3
Judah became the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar. Perez became the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram,
4
Ram the father of Amminadab. Amminadab became the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5
Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab. Boaz became the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth. Obed became the father of Jesse,
6
Jesse the father of David the king. David became the father of Solomon, whose mother had been the wife of Uriah.
7
3 Solomon became the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asaph.
8
Asaph became the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, Joram the father of Uzziah.
9
Uzziah became the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah.
10
Hezekiah became the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amos, 4 Amos the father of Josiah.
11
Josiah became the father of Jechoniah and his brothers at the time of the Babylonian exile.
12
After the Babylonian exile, Jechoniah became the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13
Zerubbabel the father of Abiud. Abiud became the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor,
14
Azor the father of Zadok. Zadok became the father of Achim, Achim the father of Eliud,
15
Eliud the father of Eleazar. Eleazar became the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob,
16
Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Of her was born Jesus who is called the Messiah.
17
Thus the total number of generations from Abraham to David is fourteen generations; from David to the Babylonian exile, fourteen generations; from the Babylonian exile to the Messiah, fourteen generations. *

While some of the geneology is historically questionable, we know that the OT in many cases is not meant as a literal history, but rather should be understood in terms of the literal meaning. That is, what is the story telling us about God. Correct me Hashem, if this is not a correct interpretation of Jewish literary style in the OT.

 

[HashemEchad]

I suppose much has to be said about those Jews that accepted the teachings and persevered under great persecution. Even as a polemic, it must make you wonder why people would die rather than choose apostasy or “fall apart”.

I’d like a peak at those records

You might not be aware of this, but there have been many Jewish martyrs as well, who chose the One God over idolatry, even to the point of death.

Rabbi Akiva (who was a convert to Judaism) was burned alive by the Romans, wrapped in the scrolls of the Torah, because he refused to surrender his faith in the One true God. And he was only one of many over the last 3,500 years.

Other religions also have their martyrs. Being willing to die for ones faith doesn’t prove the truth of that faith…and I include my own religion in that as well!

 

[HashemEchad]

Is it possible that the Messiah came before the discovery of DNA?
Jesus is from the lineage of David. Matthew takes great pains to show this.

Matt 1:
*1
The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
2
Abraham became the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers.
3
Judah became the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar. Perez became the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram,
4
Ram the father of Amminadab. Amminadab became the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5
Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab. Boaz became the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth. Obed became the father of Jesse,
6
Jesse the father of David the king. David became the father of Solomon, whose mother had been the wife of Uriah.
7
3 Solomon became the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asaph.
8
Asaph became the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, Joram the father of Uzziah.
9
Uzziah became the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah.
10
Hezekiah became the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amos, 4 Amos the father of Josiah.
11
Josiah became the father of Jechoniah and his brothers at the time of the Babylonian exile.
12
After the Babylonian exile, Jechoniah became the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13
Zerubbabel the father of Abiud. Abiud became the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor,
14
Azor the father of Zadok. Zadok became the father of Achim, Achim the father of Eliud,
15
Eliud the father of Eleazar. Eleazar became the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob,
16
Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Of her was born Jesus who is called the Messiah.
17
Thus the total number of generations from Abraham to David is fourteen generations; from David to the Babylonian exile, fourteen generations; from the Babylonian exile to the Messiah, fourteen generations. *

While some of the geneology is historically questionable, we know that the OT in many cases is not meant as a literal history, but rather should be understood in terms of the literal meaning. That is, what is the story telling us about God. Correct me Hashem, if this is not a correct interpretation of Jewish literary style in the OT.

But Christians believe that Joseph was NOT the PHYSICAL father of Jesus, correct? Therefore anything in Joseph’s lineage does not apply to Jesus.

Furthermore, Jeremiah states that Jeconiah would never produce offspring that would sit on the throne of King David, as a Divine punishment from God.

Yet we see Jeconiah in Joseph’s lineage (according to the genealogy given in Matthew.) So even if Joseph WERE the biological father of Jesus, Jeconiah in his lineage also rules him out.

(be careful…I’ve debated this very issue with polemical Christian pastors and left them stuttering…

 

[zerinus]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3567945&postcount=492

Incorrect
Let’s try an analogy:
Water plus heat makes steam
Water (bread & wine) plus heat (transubstantiation) makes steam (Body and Blood of Christ-‘Real Presence’)

Wrong! The council of Trent defines Real Presence to mean that “Christ is truly, really and substantially contained in the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist”. In other words, Real Presence means that there is a substantial change in the bread and wine so as to contain Christ. That is another way of saying Transubstantiation.

Incorrect
The Orthodox know the truth of the Real Presence but reject transubstantiation.

Wong again! The Orthodox simply use a Greek derived term “Metousiosis” to express exactly the same meaning as the Latin derived “Transubstantiation”. Here is a quote from the Wikipedia article:

Metousiosis is a Greek term (μετουσίωσις) that means, literally, a change of οὐσία (essence, inner reality).

Cyril Lucaris (or Lucar), the Patriarch of Alexandria and later of Constantinople who died in 1638, used this Greek term to express the idea for which the Latin term is transsubstantiatio (transubstantiation), which likewise literally means a change of substantia (substance, inner reality), using, in the 1629 Latin text of his The Eastern Confession of the Orthodox Faith, the term transsubstantiatio, and, in the Greek translation published in 1633, the term μετουσίωσις. Wikipedia

zerinus

 

[MelanieAnne]

Dontcha just love it when people who don’t know Catholic doctrine try to tell you how wrong you are?

 

[HashemEchad]

I was under the impression that the Catholic religion believes as a de fide dogma that when the priest says the words of consecration, the bread and wine become the “body, blood, soul and divinity” of Jesus, correct?

Doesn’t that mean they believe the bread and wine completely and entirely become his flesh and blood, as well as his soul?

How does the Catholic religion fit that with Lev 17:10-11, just out of curiosity?

 

[Stephen168]

And here is the most interesting quote perhaps from the definition of the Council of Trent:

The first definition of the Council of Trent is on the Catholic meaning of the Real Presence. The definition reads: “If anyone says that the Body and Blood together with His whole Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore the whole Christ, is truly, really and substantially contained in the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist, but says that Christ is present in the Sacrament only as in a sign or figure or by His power, let him be anathema.” (Session 13, can.1)

There are two paragraphs in your link

1. MEANING OF THE REAL PRESENCE
2. TRANSUBSTANTIATION
   That is because they are two different things. If you want to understand transubstantiation then try reading the correct paragraph. That would be paragraph number two titled TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I was under the impression that the Catholic religion believes as a de fide dogma that when the priest says the words of consecration, the bread and wine become the “body, blood, soul and divinity” of Jesus, correct?

Doesn’t that mean they believe the bread and wine completely and entirely become his flesh and blood, as well as his soul?

How does the Catholic religion fit that with Lev 17:10-11, just out of curiosity?

Jesus came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. He is the New Covenant. He is the bloody sacrifice that atones for our sins. That is why we no longer offer animal sacrifice. In Acts, Peter has a dream where Heaven opened up and there was a sheet containing all the earth’s four-legged animals and reptiles and the birds of the sky. A voice (presumably God) said told him to eat.
But Peter said, “Certainly not, sir. For never have I eaten anything profane and unclean.”

The voice spoke to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.”

You make a very good case for the Real Presence, and that’s why Jesus’ disciples found this saying hard to understand. It WAS hard, for it was forbidden, as you say, in Lev 17 to eat blood.

 

[qui_est_ce]

There are two paragraphs in your link

1. MEANING OF THE REAL PRESENCE
2. TRANSUBSTANTIATION
   That is because they are two different things. If you want to understand transubstantiation then try reading the correct paragraph. That would be paragraph number two titled TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

Good luck.

 

[HashemEchad]

Jesus came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. He is the New Covenant. He is the bloody sacrifice that atones for our sins. That is why we no longer offer animal sacrifice. In Acts, Peter has a dream where Heaven opened up and there was a sheet containing all the earth’s four-legged animals and reptiles and the birds of the sky. A voice (presumably God) said told him to eat.
But Peter said, “Certainly not, sir. For never have I eaten anything profane and unclean.”

The voice spoke to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.”

You make a very good case for the Real Presence, and that’s why Jesus’ disciples found this saying hard to understand. It WAS hard, for it was forbidden, as you say, in Lev 17 to eat blood.

One thing we as Jews know: the Torah was forever. It was never to be abolished or changed.

If I were to believe, as a Jew (God forbid), that I had to eat Jesus’ body and drink his blood, that would be a CLEAR violation of the Torah. Jews are forbidden to ingest ANY manner of blood. Catholics in medieval times did not know this, because they often falsely accused us of using the blood of Christian children in our religious rituals But as you can see from Lev 17, we’re not the ones with the blood fixation.

As for not sacrificing animals, if you are not Jewish, you NEVER DID have to sacrifice animals. That was only for Jews. So to say you no longer have to sacrifice animals is wrong…you never did have to.

As for Peter’s vision, PLEASE read the entire chapter. Few Christians ever do.

If you read it fully, you will see that Peter understood what God was saying to him was that he “should not call ANY MAN common or unclean”! Unclean food was used as an EXAMPLE. Peter understood what the visions truly meant, as is evidence by his reference to not calling any PERSON common or unclean.

Remember, Peter felt that Jews and Gentiles within the new Christian church should be treated differently. The vision was supposed to teach him that all were supposed to be “one”.

 

[wisdomseeker]

One thing we as Jews know: the Torah was forever. It was never to be abolished or changed.

If I were to believe, as a Jew (God forbid), that I had to eat Jesus’ body and drink his blood, that would be a CLEAR violation of the Torah. Jews are forbidden to ingest ANY manner of blood. Catholics in medieval times did not know this, because they often falsely accused us of using the blood of Christian children in our religious rituals But as you can see from Lev 17, we’re not the ones with the blood fixation.

As for not sacrificing animals, if you are not Jewish, you NEVER DID have to sacrifice animals. That was only for Jews. So to say you no longer have to sacrifice animals is wrong…you never did have to.

As for Peter’s vision, PLEASE read the entire chapter. Few Christians ever do.

If you read it fully, you will see that Peter understood what God was saying to him was that he “should not call ANY MAN common or unclean”! Unclean food was used as an EXAMPLE. Peter understood what the visions truly meant, as is evidence by his reference to not calling any PERSON common or unclean.

Remember, Peter felt that Jews and Gentiles within the new Christian church should be treated differently. The vision was supposed to teach him that all were supposed to be “one”.

True. but if gentiles were to convert to judaism and animal sacrifice had not ceased then we would be joined with you all in the sacrifice of animals.
have you ever wondered why after Jesus came the animal sacrifice ceased in judaism?

 

[HashemEchad]

True. but if gentiles were to convert to judaism and animal sacrifice had not ceased then we would be joined with you all in the sacrifice of animals.
have you ever wondered why after Jesus came the animal sacrifice ceased in judaism?

Animal sacrifice also ceased at other times, before Jesus. Animals cannot be sacrificed when the Temple is not standing. And the Second Temple’s destruction in 70 CE was not the first time it was destroyed.

The FIRST Temple was also destroyed, and I don’t recall Jesus being anywhere around when it happened.

The destruction of the Temples were foretold in Jewish prophecy, just as other punishments were foretold. Deuteronomy 28 mentions what will happen when Jews do not keep the Torah, and what happens when we do.

We have been punished when we do not keep Torah, no other reason.

BTW it might interest you to learn that in Judaism, animal sacrifice is not the ONLY way to atone for sin. It is simply ONE Of the ways. Even Leviticus 17 states that blood was given by God to make AN atonement for sin.

Proverbs 16:6 states that mercy and truth ALSO atone for sin (which means the doing of mitzvot, or good deeds.) This is why Judaism is so strong on doing good deeds, because during this period (until the Messiah comes to help build the Third Temple), good deeds is what atones for our sins.

 

[zerinus]

There are two paragraphs in your link

1. MEANING OF THE REAL PRESENCE
2. TRANSUBSTANTIATION
   That is because they are two different things. If you want to understand transubstantiation then try reading the correct paragraph. That would be paragraph number two titled TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

Forget about what the article says. The article is the opinion of its author, or how the author tries to make sense of the statement of the Council of Trent. The actual statements of the Council of the Trent, in the two successive paragraphs are as follows:

“If anyone says that the Body and Blood together with His whole Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore the whole Christ, is truly, really and substantially contained in the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist, but says that Christ is present in the Sacrament only as in a sign or figure or by His power, let him be anathema.” (Session 13, can.1)

“If anyone says that the substance of bread and wine remains in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and denies that wonderful and extraordinary change of the whole substance of the wine into His blood, while only the species of bread and wine remain, a change which the Catholic Church has most fittingly called ‘transubstantiation,’ let him be anathema.” (Session 13, can.2)

This merely defines Transubstantiation as an integral part of Real Presence. The purpose of the second paragraph is not to explain how the bread and wine are changed (as you and the article incorrectly asserted); but merely to emphasize that a change does take place; and coins a new word for it called “Transubstantiation”. Transubstantiation is an integral part of Real Presence. There is no Real Presence without Transubstantiation; and there is no Transubstantiation without Real Presence. The two are inseparably intertwined. That is what the Council of Trent says. I don’t care what you or the article say.

zerinus

 

[MelanieAnne]

Jesus Christ can be present without transubstantiation occurring so to assert that there can be no Real Presence without Transubstantiation is false.

 

[zerinus]

Jesus Christ can be present without transubstantiation occurring so to assert that there can be no Real Presence without Transubstantiation is false.

I was explaining what the Council of Trent says, not what MelanieAnne says. You are not the Council of Trent by any chance, are you? I didn’t think you were.

zerinus