The Eucharist and Transubstantiation (Split from "Protestants do not really believe...")

[sandusky]

HamtramckSteve:

Well, the text itself tells me that…

Here’s the KJV: 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

NIV: 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Do you confine the Lord’s body only to the bread?**1 Corinthians 10:16-17

16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

17 Since there is one bread, we…are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.**In the larger context of the passage, Paul here refers to the church as one body who partakes of one bread—could the body that’s not being rightly discerned in the passage be Christ’s church—believers being mistreated by other believers—and not the bread?

 

[Rolltide]

17 Since there is one bread, we…are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.

[/indent]In the larger context of the passage, Paul here refers to the church as one body who partakes of one bread—could the body that’s not being rightly discerned in the passage be Christ’s church—believers being mistreated by other believers—and not the bread?

A good way to figure out which interpretation is correct is to look at what the earliest Christians believed about Communion. Perhaps you did not read my post earlier in the thread (which admittedly is very large and in-depth), but in essence, it shows that belief in the Real Presence dates back to the very earliest historical documents we have in Christianity. In fact, there may be no other topics upon which early Christians were more unanimous about, INCLUDING the Trinity! I have compiled much of the historical evidence for you in my post above.

 

[sandusky]

A good way to figure out which interpretation is correct is to look at what the earliest Christians believed about Communion. Perhaps you did not read my post earlier in the thread (which admittedly is very large and in-depth), but in essence, it shows that belief in the Real Presence dates back to the very earliest historical documents we have in Christianity. In fact, there may be no other topics upon which early Christians were more unanimous about, INCLUDING the Trinity! I have compiled much of the historical evidence for you in my post above.

I don’t think that’s a good way to figure out what Paul’s saying.

The epistle to the Corinthians is an inspired writing, and in its context, it’s not difficult to understand that the chiding is for the mistreatment of some believers by other believers (vv17-22); therefore, the “body” that’s not being rightly discerned is the church, and not the “body and blood” of Christ remembered.

 

[HamtramckSteve]

Do you confine the Lord’s body only to the bread?1 Corinthians 10:16-17

16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

17 Since there is one bread, we…are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.In the larger context of the passage, Paul here refers to the church as one body who partakes of one bread—could the body that’s not being rightly discerned in the passage be Christ’s church—believers being mistreated by other believers—and not the bread?

Yes, you make an excellent case for the church also being the body that Paul writes about.

However, why do you think that makes it automatically NOT Jesus’s body? Could it not be both?

I limited my comments to only that one verse, which is what I thought you wanted. I was suspicious of your motives, and answered your question forthrightly. Now, I see you indeed had something else up your sleeve.

 

[sandusky]

HamtramckSteve:

Yes, you make an excellent case for the church also being the body that Paul writes about.

However, why do you think that makes it automatically NOT Jesus’s body? Could it not be both?

It doesn’t automatically make it NOT Jesus’ body, but contextually it makes it not Jesus body.

HamtramckSteve:

I limited my comments to only that one verse, which is what I thought you wanted. I was suspicious of your motives, and answered your question forthrightly. Now, I see you indeed had something else up your sleeve.

What’s up my sleeve? That it’s always good to understand a passage in its context?

 

[HamtramckSteve]

It doesn’t automatically make it NOT Jesus’ body, but contextually it makes it not Jesus body.

Why does it negate the bread being Jesus’s body? Why does it have to be one or the other, especially when Christian teaching has historically supported the Real Presence?

 

[sandusky]

HamtramchSteve:

Why does it negate the bread being Jesus’s body? Why does it have to be one or the other, especially when Christian teaching has historically supported the Real Presence?

Answering the former question, in context the body not being rightly discerned is the church, as demonstrated in Paul’s scolding some in the church for the mistreatment of others in the church (vv17-22).

To your latter question, whether the church supported real presence or not, has no bearing on the context of 1 Cor 11.

 

[HamtramckSteve]

Answering the former question, in context the body not being rightly discerned is the church, as demonstrated in Paul’s scolding some in the church for the mistreatment of others in the church (vv17-22).

You still didn’t answer why it’s got to be one or the other.

 

[Claudius]

As far as transubstantiation- the Roman Catholic dogma- being contained in John’s Gospel- I remain unconvinced.

So you are admitting that you do not believe in Christ and therefore are not a Christian.

John’s Gospel clearly teaches of the spiritual and metaphorical sense of “eating” and “drinking” as pertaining to the body and blood of Christ.

NO It clearly teaches that what Christ said is true. He Commanded this be done. If you have no faith, then I can understand you don’t want to Listen to Christ Jesus but I will if you don’t mind.

Please RE-read John 6 and consider carefully that “eating” and “drinking” are synonyms for “coming” and “believing” - as in John 6:34-36: “Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 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. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.”

So let me get this right. Jesus said “I am the bread of Life” but you don’t believe him. He also said “Eat my flesh and drink my blood” but you think that is too hard so you don’t want to do it and want to psyco babble yourself out of it.

I believe that to extract anything more from this marvelous discourse is damaging to the Scriptures and to the essence of Christ’s sacrifice.

Why are you detracting from the words our blessed Lord spoke to us. Why do you deny his sacrifice.

Also we should remember that the gospel of John consistently sets forth a “pattern” if you will, of these same kinds of spiritual and metaphorical truths in similar illustration.

You call it metaphor but I think it is pretty plain and clear. Why do you deny Jesus?

Jesus declared:

I am the bread of life

SO you don’t believe that Jesus is the bread of life even though you admit that he said he is.

I am the door

So you don’t believe that Jesus is the Door even though He said he is.

I am the light

So you don’t believe that he is the light even though JESUS said he is.

I am the shepherd

So now you won’t even believe that Jesus is our shepard when Jesus himself said he is.

(and we are his sheep)

Well, Catholics are the sheep, I can’t say the same with full confidence about you protestants.

I am the vine

So you don’t believe that he is the vine. Jesus said he was the vine. I believe Jesus since you know he is the son of God and all.

(and we are his branches)

Well, Catholics are the branches, but as before, I can not say the same with full confidence about protestants who refuse to believe that Jesus is the Vine.

etc.

NO please, go on, I want to know just how far your apostacy goes.

It is strange to me that Rome demands that we interpret “I am the bread of Life” as being Literal-physical, when none of these other statements are interpreted in this fashion.

What are you talking about. Catholics believe all the Lord Jesus preached to us and we repeat his message to you. Why do you not believe? I beg you, end your unbelief and believe before it is too late.

*I do not assert that the “I am” statements are not Literal, nor do I assert that Jesus’ declaration “I am the bread of Life” is not Literal; I only deny that they are Literal-physical.

I am not impressed with Psyco babble. “I believe but I don’t believe.” Maybe you would be better off as a budhist.

I am convinced that the statement of Jesus “I am the bread of Life” is indeed Literal, but just like all the other statements- it is Literal-spiritual.

The spirit and the body both exist my friend and they both come from God and are both true.

Besides, in my opinion; the spiritual is way more REAL than the physical,

So Jesus isn’t “real” in his physical body in heaven?

and therefore: to a true born again believer

You mean someone who has made a claim on God but refused baptism don’t you.

in Christ- one who has been translated out of the kingdom of darkness into the spiritual and heavenly Kingdom of God’s dear Son- the spiritual is way more LITERAL.

If you think that matter doesn’t matter than you are in for a big surprise when you dead body hits the floor and you find out that God will not raise you up on the last day.

With all due respect- the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation is purely pagan, and must be dismissed as vain superstition.

If you believe this than you are not a Christian. You are really an athiest. If the Catholic Church is not true, than all of Christianity is a false religion.

You have psyco babbled your way out of belief in Christ. I will pray for you that you recieve the grace and humility to see the error of what you have written. I fear for your soul. The devil wants you and he is now standing before God accusing you and using what you have written here as evidence against you.

If it is a red flag I receive- it is a red flag I receive- the truth must be told- for no one can be saved through a lie- (2 Thes. 2:13)

.

The only one who has lied here is you. Sure, you may really believe what you have written but it is not the truth because it is not true in Objective Reality. The Bible begs to differ with you as does the Church that wrote that Bible and God who founded that Church. Please do not persist in your unbelief.

 

[sandusky]

You still didn’t answer why it’s got to be one or the other.

I did—the context of the passage.

 

[guanophore]

If we take His words literally we end up with cannibalism.

Actually this would be a literalist interpretation, but you are right. This is why the Romans accused Christians of “eating their God, and drownding their infants”. It refers to Eucharist and baptism.

Are there any passages in the NT that describes the Lord’s supper in this way?

Indeed!

ohn is the only gospel writer who gives no details of the last supper. If John thought that John 6 was related directly to the supper then why did he not make the connection in his Gospel or other letters?

On the contrary, John give the most detailed reflection. He is looking back on 50 years of Eucharistic celebration,and showing how Christ gave His own Body during the last supper, and that he prophesied in advance that He would do this.

The connection is clear for those who have received the Apostolic teaching.

As you know that Jesus mentions eternal life with “eating” His flesh and yet none of the gospel accounts never mention this.

John is a gospel account.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t think that’s a good way to figure out what Paul’s saying.

Why not? Why do you think those who knew him were so quickly confused by what he meant?

The epistle to the Corinthians is an inspired writing, and in its context, it’s not difficult to understand that the chiding is for the mistreatment of some believers by other believers (vv17-22); therefore, the “body” that’s not being rightly discerned is the church, and not the “body and blood” of Christ remembered.

How can they “eat” condemnation upon themselves?

 

[ncgolf]

I don’t think that’s a good way to figure out what Paul’s saying.

The epistle to the Corinthians is an inspired writing, and in its context, it’s not difficult to understand that the chiding is for the mistreatment of some believers by other believers (vv17-22); therefore, the “body” that’s not being rightly discerned is the church, and not the “body and blood” of Christ remembered.

The overall context here is Paul is very unhappy with the goings on in Corinth. These people are getting an earful from Paul … the chiding is severe but the chiding in 17-22 has nothing to do with verses 23-29. It is a continuation of the verbal lashing but on a different subject.

Paul is describing the Liturgy of the Eucharist in 23-25. Verses 24 and 25 are the reminders to the Corinthians of what exactly is going on when those words are spoken. His chiding is … you better remember and understand what is being offered to you … this is not mere bread and wine you are consuming. If you cannot understand this then don’t eat or drink this … the alternative is not pretty.

Why would Paul be so severe in his tone if it just was ordinary bread and wine?

How do you rightly discern a church?

 

[guanophore]

It doesn’t automatically make it NOT Jesus’ body, but contextually it makes it not Jesus body.

How can you profane something not present? If the Body and Blood are not there, how can one eat and drink in an unworthy manner?

 

[guanophore]

So you are admitting that you do not believe in Christ and therefore are not a Christian.

It is not our place to judge the content or quality of the faith of others. Only God can see the heart. This is like saying that Thomas was not really a disciple, because he was unconvinced that Jesus was raised until he put his hand into His side.

So let me get this right. Jesus said “I am the bread of Life” but you don’t believe him. He also said “Eat my flesh and drink my blood” but you think that is too hard so you don’t want to do it and want to psyco babble yourself out of it.

You are both off topic.

 Why do you deny his sacrifice.

Protestants do not deny the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. They just don’t recognize Him in the breaking of the bread, just like the disciples on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Him.

 Why do you deny Jesus?

This is not a fair accusation either. Apollos did not deny Jesus, yet he had a valid (if incomplete) understanding of the faith.

Well, Catholics are the sheep, I can’t say the same with full confidence about you protestants.

This is good, since it is not your place to say.

NO please, go on, I want to know just how far your apostacy goes.

Protestants cannot be charged with apostasy, since it requires that one have embraced the faith, and rejected it. Most have never been taught the Apostolic faith. Furthermore, that is not relevant to the thread (except to the extent that SS is the practice started by apostates) and I am not sure that it is appropriate to the threads at all. Maybe you better do it by PM?

Maybe you would be better off as a budhist.

You have said that you are interested in Protestants getting to heaven. I don’t think such a statement is conducive to that end.

you are in for a big surprise when you dead body hits the floor and you find out that God will not raise you up on the last day.

This is not our place to say either.

 I will pray for you that you recieve the grace and humility to see the error of what you have written.  I fear for your soul.  The devil wants you and he is now standing before God accusing you and using what you have written here as evidence against you.

I hope you will include yourself!

 

[sandusky]

Why not? Why do you think those who knew him were so quickly confused by what he meant?

How can they “eat” condemnation upon themselves?

The context of the passage, guanophore.

 

[sandusky]

How can you profane something not present? If the Body and Blood are not there, how can one eat and drink in an unworthy manner?

The context of the passage tells you, guanophore.

 

[Jf4man]

As far as transubstantiation- the Roman Catholic dogma- being contained in John’s Gospel- I remain unconvinced… etc

they may be synonyms but here is where it’s good to know the Greek and the Aramaic. the word Jesus used literally meant “to Gnaw”

Why would they find it hard to believe that to be saved you would have to “come and believe” in him!?

Jesus says in John 6: 62 “What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?”
He is saying you would easily believe he was ascending. so it should be even easier to believe in this Transubstantiation because it is a much bigger Miracles. the bigger the miracle, the easier it would be to believe.
how would coming and believing and pretending bread and wine is the Body and Blood be a bigger miracle than Bread and Wine turning into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ?

John 6:51 “…The Bread i will give is the Flesh that i will give for the Life of the World”

what is the flesh He gave for the life of the world?
the very Flesh that hung upon that Cross in atonement for our sins.
if you deny that the Bread is his Flesh then YOU DENY THAT JESUS REALLY DIED ON THE CROSS FOR OUR SINS AND YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN!!!
he says that the bread IS the Flesh he will give not is refering to or reguarding. he said it IS!!! where is the symbolism there!?

if you do not believe in the Transubstantiation, what is new under the sun?! the Christians in John 6:66 (notice the reference!?) didn’t believe in it either!!!

Your Brother in Christ,

Jeff

 

[guanophore]

The context of the passage, guanophore.

That is not much help to me, sandy.

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. 30 For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.”
1 Cor 11:27-32

How can you be “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” if the Body and Blood are not present? I understand what you have said about rightly discerning the body of Christ in the manner of the gathering of believers,and recieiving all equally. However, we don’t “eat and drink” our brothers and sisters in Christ. This seems to be to be clearly a reference to the Last supper, that Christians observe “in rememberance” of HIm.

 

[nuntym]

Do you confine the Lord’s body only to the bread?1 Corinthians 10:16-17

16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

17 Since there is one bread, we…are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.In the larger context of the passage, Paul here refers to the church as one body who partakes of one bread—could the body that’s not being rightly discerned in the passage be Christ’s church—believers being mistreated by other believers—and not the bread?

Maybe…but have you thought of why it is only ONE Bread? Is the bread one because the Church is One Body? Or is the Church One Body because of the One Bread that gives it one-ness?

Read carefully what you posted, which I quoted here. And remember WHO gives the Church One-ness.

Also, a hymn to reflect on:

One Bread One Body

One bread, one body, One Lord of all,
One cup of blessing which we bless.
And we, though many, throughout the earth,
We are one body in this one Lord.

Gentile or Jew, Servant or free,
Woman or man, No more.

One bread, one body, One Lord of all,
One cup of blessing which we bless.
And we, though many, throughout the earth,
We are one body in this one Lord.

Many the gifts, Many the works,
One in the Lord, Of all.

One bread, one body, One Lord of all,
One cup of blessing which we bless.
And we, though many, throughout the earth,
We are one body in this one Lord.

Grain for the fields, Scattered and grown,
Gathered to one, For all.

One bread, one body, One Lord of all,
One cup of blessing which we bless.
And we, though many, throughout the earth,
We are one body in this one Lord.