Transubstantiation is not biblical

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paulcor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Christ himself said that no one comes to me unless the Father draws him. Christ wasn’t lying, the Father didn’t draw those that left. Just because some did not grasp what he said, does not mean he wanted them to eat his flesh and blood, it means they did not discern with the spirit.
And why not? Because Jesus said “For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.” You are suggesting that Jesus deliberately let them remain confused. Remember, they left Him because they understood Him to be speaking literally.

Of course no one comes to Jesus except through the Father; and so, too, no one comes to the Father except through Jesus. But nowhere does Jesus say anything to the effect of “I reserve the right to trick My own disciples into walking away from Me because they understood Me to mean what I said.”
In Luke 22:19, Jesus says, "do this in remembrance of me.” If it was actually his body and blood, why would he say remembrance? He was telling them to remember his passion, that by it life comes because he offered himself once and for all for our sins.
Why not say “remembrance”? He commanded us to continue His Sacrament of the Eucharist for all time in commemoration of Him.

“Do this in remembrance of me.” Do what? The Sacrament of the Eucharist. And what is that Sacrament? It is His flesh and blood.
Hebrews 10:10-12, "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after HE HAD OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOREVER, sat down on the right hand of God;"And Hebrews 10:16-18, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is,**THERE IS NO MORE OFFERING FOR SIN.” **

And Hebrews 9:12, it is written, “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.”

The thief on the cross next to Christ received salvation for believing on him, not for literally eating and drinking his flesh. So how was salvation given to this man? It was obviously given in the manner Christ had proclaimed it throughout all the gospels.
True. There was only one sacrifice: Jesus’ Passion, death, and Resurrection. It is only through His sacrifice – and it is because of His sacrifice alone – that anyone is saved.

When a Catholic priest says Mass and celebrates the Sacrament of Holy Communion, he isn’t re-sacrificing Jesus; he is making all of those around him present at Jesus’ sacrifice.
When Christ was among EVERY OTHER CROWD, he spoke of believing on him to receive eternal life, he told many, “your faith has saved you”. This has nothing to do with literally eating his flesh which saved them.
If you think one part of the Bible should be discounted because it seems to contradict other parts of the Bible, then either (A) God is wrong; (B) your translation is wrong; or (C) your interpretation of the passage is wrong.

Yes, faith can save – if you obey Jesus’ commands (remember that Scripture also teaches us that you can call Him “Lord, Lord,” and yet not be saved).

The Bible tells us that Jesus literally said that the Eucharist is His Body and Blood. You have yet to explain why we should disbelieve the Bible.
In regards to 1 Corinthians 10:16, This does not state they literally eat flesh and drink his blood. In the next verse, “Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.” He doesn’t say we share the flesh, its a loaf of bread. The one loaf of bread signifies the one body of believers. Yes, we can have symbolic meaning to our lives, just as we symbolically take up our crosses everyday through struggles other than a crucifixion. Just like we are branches of the vine.

As for 1 Corinthians 11:27-31
“So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment.”

Notice in verse 28, “Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the BREAD and drink from the CUP” Why doesn’t he say eat of his flesh and brink of his blood?
Well, given the context of this chapter, Paul is upset with people coming hungry to the memorial, or doing things privately or for getting drunk, etc. We can see here a few verses later, 1 Corinthians 11:33-34, “SO THEN”, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. 34 Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment." This is the issue Paul had… It wasn’t a matter of literally eating of Christ’s flesh.
That is a conclusion that you have reached and keep repeating. But you’re missing the fact that Paul himself notes that they are consuming the Eucharist unworthily and are therefore “guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.” He specifically notes that “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.”

Paul, too, clearly understood Jesus to be talking literally. And history teaches us that all of the Apostles so understood Him.
As you can imagine I have many posts to read and respond to. Also, for you who said I call my Lord and Savior a liar, that is a bit inappropriate.
We’re trying to get a point across to you: Jesus said “For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.” And you are saying, effectively, “No, it isn’t.” The Bible tells us that His disciples understood Him literally and left Him because of it; your explanation means that either (A) Jesus didn’t know that they misunderstood Him by taking a symbolic passage literally; or (B) Jesus deliberately let His followers doom themselves to Hell by misunderstanding Him.

Either we’re right, or Jesus tricked people into going to Hell. Why are you comfortable with that?
 
Paulcor, out of curiosity, can you quote one Christian prior to the Reformation who interpreted John 6 the way you did in this thread?

If not, and if you still believe that your interpretation of John 6 is correct, then can you explain how literally billions of Christians, spread out in the various Christian Churches (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox & Oriental Orthodox), managed to miss this correct interpretation for 1500 years?

Moreover, if you do not believe that the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist is apostolic, then please explain who invented this doctrine and how he got all the various Churches which rose from the original Apostolic Sees to play along. For the record, that includes Churches in the ancient world spread out over three continents.
Neither has he explained his authority to violate the bible by privately interpreting scripture.

He is ignoring the elephant in his living room.
 
If you want something Biblical, look at the word “anamnesis” and see what it means and how it is used in the Bible particularly in the Old Testament.

I will admit that transubstantiation is more of a philosophical reasoning in trying to explain what happens with the Eucharist. But it is not the be-all, end-all of the Eucharist. Whether you use the reasoning employed by Transubstantiation or not, it doesn’t detract from the fact that the Eucharist is indeed the Body and Blood of Christ.
It is more than a philosophical term. The central decision of the Council of Nicaea was to employ the extra-scriptural term homo-ousion meaning “ same- substance” and investing it with a new, meaning antithetical to any of Arius’ teachings. In a similar way, the Church employed the term transubtantiation investing it with a meaning antithetical to the teaching that the bread and wine only symbolize the body and blood of Christ.
 
This first post of mine will mainly cover John Chapter 6, a chapter in which the Catholic church uses to support its doctrine of transubstantiation. I will cover the chapter in sections, verses 26-35, 36-47, 48-51, 52-58, 60-63.

Let me begin by saying that I am using scripture to shed light on something that is not scripture, transubstantiation. The last supper account nowhere near establishes this idea, nor does John Chapter 6, in fact all the evidence of the new testament points away from it. If we look at what Christ is conveying, it has to do with believing in him and his sacrifice on the cross.

Notice in verse 47 Christ says, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” The very next verse is, “I am that bread of life”. It is so apparently obvious here that Christ is speaking of them believing in him. This does not have to do with transubstantiation, or the actual eating of his flesh and blood, but to do with the belief that he was sent by God for the remission of our sins on the cross, that brings life into you! He isn’t speaking of a ritual, but belief in him as the way to salvation! Again, verse 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.”

.
St. Ignatius of Antioch said…Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6:2-7:1).

And St. Ireneus said…He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him? (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 5:2)

So both of these Early Church Fathers…are wrong in believing the Real presence of Christ and you are right?
 
This first post of mine will mainly cover John Chapter 6, a chapter in which the Catholic church uses to support its doctrine of transubstantiation. I will cover the chapter in sections, verses 26-35, 36-47, 48-51, 52-58, 60-63.

Let me begin by saying that I am using scripture to shed light on something that is not scripture, transubstantiation. The last supper account nowhere near establishes this idea, nor does John Chapter 6, in fact all the evidence of the new testament points away from it. If we look at what Christ is conveying, it has to do with believing in him and his sacrifice on the cross.

John 6:26-35

Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
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.

Let us stop here and review what Christ has spoken to them. Jesus starts by explaining that the people there following him were only after the food and drink that satisfied their human natures. Prior to these verses Christ fed multitudes of people. He voices his concern that they do not look for eternal life, which are the words that he speaks that will be the food and drink that lead them to it. He says, “Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life,”. Then the people ask him, what do we need to do? And Jesus says, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” Jesus says to believe in him. This isn’t precursor to believing that they need to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood, it is believing that he is the Son of God and holds the words of everlasting life. That he is the light of the world and it is only through him that we are saved. John 6:40, “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”. Those that do this are the ones that have eaten his flesh and drunken his blood. This faith in Christ, those that consume his word and believe, may have everlasting life and will be raised. In verses 32 and 33, Christ says, “Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.” This is directed to those present, and everything Christ has established points to believing in him to receive eternal life. He is in no way instructing them to literally eat his flesh and blood, but to believe in him and his death on the cross for their sins, which will give life to the world.

All of this preludes Christ’s message of, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” Christ has established that those who believe in him will have eternal life and be raised up. This in no way establishes a priestly sacrifice on an alter to obtain eternal life. It is through faith in Christ. The ritual in which the Roman church partakes does not enhance ones belief in Christ. It does not hold power over Christ’s sacrifice, it does not repeat it, it does not conjure him as a victim to offer over and over to God. In Hebrews 10:10-12, “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ** once for all**. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;” And Hebrews 10:16-18, "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." And Hebrews 9:12, it is written, “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in **once **into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” We know that he suffered and died for our sins, we believe his word and in whom sent him. This is eternal life, this is the bread that nourishes the soul, you can’t get it by putting something into your stomach. This is made overwhelmingly clear all throughout John Chapter 6.

Lets look at John 5:24, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life”. What does Christ say? He that hears his word and believes that he was sent by God has eternal life. Again, let us bring in John 6:35, “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”. This in no way points to actually eating his flesh and drinking his blood, it is extremely obvious that he is speaking of a symbolic hunger and thirst for truth and life. In John 6:47 Jesus says, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life”. Again, everything Christ teaches his disciples and the crowds throughout all of the gospels has to do with believing in him to receive eternal life, not literally partaking in a ritual of his flesh and blood. Do you remember when Christ reminded the evil one that, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” Christ’s words are that of Gods, these words bring nourishment to our soul. It is strongly established that eating of Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood is direct symbolism for belief in his message of eternal life through his word and passion. This is apparent if we were to just look at John Chapter six, which I will continue to the rest of, but like I said, it is apparent throughout the gospels.

Lets continue further into John Chapter Six.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
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.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Notice in verse 47 Christ says, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” The very next verse is, “I am that bread of life”. It is so apparently obvious here that Christ is speaking of them believing in him. This does not have to do with transubstantiation, or the actual eating of his flesh and blood, but to do with the belief that he was sent by God for the remission of our sins on the cross, that brings life into you! He isn’t speaking of a ritual, but belief in him as the way to salvation! Again, verse 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.”

.
:ehh: I am curious about something? At Passover (Pesach) meals did they actually eat and consume an actual tangible lamb or just a cookie cut-out of a lamb?
 
:ehh: I am curious about something? At Passover (Pesach) meals did they actually eat and consume an actual tangible lamb or just a cookie cut-out of a lamb?
As I hope that our Christian brother will kindly note, he has:
  1. one bible
  2. zero authority to interpret
 
It is biblical and if first appears in the wedding of Cana wherein JESUS transubstantiates the water into wine at the request of HIS Mother Mary. In fact in reviewing JESUS life, transubstantiation is the “bookends” of HIS major miracles, first the water into wine - no one ever challenges this - second HIS BODY and BLOOD into the BREAD and WINE of the Holy Mass as first performed during HIS last Passover Supper.

As JESUS can transubstantiate, it add’s to our hope and leverages our joy in helping us to focus on how JESUS will “change” us from sinners to saints.
 
Paulcor, out of curiosity, can you quote one Christian prior to the Reformation who interpreted John 6 the way you did in this thread?

If not, and if you still believe that your interpretation of John 6 is correct, then can you explain how literally billions of Christians, spread out in the various Christian Churches (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox & Oriental Orthodox), managed to miss this correct interpretation for 1500 years?

Moreover, if you do not believe that the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist is apostolic, then please explain who invented this doctrine and how he got all the various Churches which rose from the original Apostolic Sees to play along. For the record, that includes Churches in the ancient world spread out over three continents.
The Christians prior to the reformation, how about the disciples? They knew that Christ held the words of eternal life.

You could quote the gnostics, or the montanists as well, both of which were sprung early in the 2nd century.

Christ established something that cannot be corrupted or destroyed. Man through emperical politics and decress formed what the Catholic church is. The hierarchy of the church today is so ellaborate that it makes the Pharisees look like hippies and authority bashers, which Christ was very against (the hierarchy).

The Catholic church had an empire, and through it politics and curruption flowed. You can’t deny people were silenced, and im many cases the laity was banned from having a bible and drinking of the cup, which contradicts Christ if you take him literally in John 6, even thought the disciples knew otherwise.

I’m not the only one who believes this, its apparent that the early church in the NT understood it the same way, and if you were to ask other “Catholics”, many would tell you the same. There was no establishment of priests in a very hierarchical structure repeating the sacrifice over and over every day to make what Christ did more complete, or to do what Christ sacrifice did not do. It did everything.

You realize that Christ was very symbolic and used many analogies, just because he doesn’t correct people, doesn’t mean it was literal. In fact many left him or opposed him and refused to listen to him for other reasons.

Lets look at this, Jesus with the Samaritan Women

John 4:7-14

7 When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” 8 (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.)

9 The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.[a])

10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”

11 “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?”

13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

What is this water? He says you drink the water, but we know that consuming something into the body is not what he is speaking about. He is talking about his word and belief in him!!

Again, let us bring in John 6:35, “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”.

These both tell of the same message of salvation!

John 6:47 Jesus says, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life”.

We are told that Christ has written in our hearts, and to say a hierarchy can stand in the way of such a thing, is obviously false.
 
It is biblical and if first appears in the wedding of Cana wherein JESUS transubstantiates the water into wine at the request of HIS Mother Mary. In fact in reviewing JESUS life, transubstantiation is the “bookends” of HIS major miracles, first the water into wine - no one ever challenges this - second HIS BODY and BLOOD into the BREAD and WINE of the Holy Mass as first performed during HIS last Passover Supper.

As JESUS can transubstantiate, it add’s to our hope and leverages our joy in helping us to focus on how JESUS will “change” us from sinners to saints.
I understand the point you’re trying to make, but I think you’re confused. In the Cana story, there’s no transubstantiation, per se – in this case, both the appearances and the substance of the water are transformed: they become the appearances and the substance of wine! Moreover, you’re mixing & matching Gospel accounts: John has the Cana story, but no institution narrative, while the Synoptic Gospels all have institution narratives, but no Cana story.
 
I understand the point you’re trying to make, but I think you’re confused. In the Cana story, there’s no transubstantiation, per se – in this case, both the appearances and the substance of the water are transformed: they become the appearances and the substance of wine! Moreover, you’re mixing & matching Gospel accounts: John has the Cana story, but no institution narrative, while the Synoptic Gospels all have institution narratives, but no Cana story.
I think the word is transfiguration or transformation for the changing of form or appearance.
 
The Christians prior to the reformation, how about the disciples? They knew that Christ held the words of eternal life.
Yes, they knew that… but that doesn’t demonstrate that they didn’t believe in the Eucharist.
You could quote the gnostics, or the montanists as well, both of which were sprung early in the 2nd century.
Hmm… you’re calling gnostics “Christians”, then?
im many cases the laity was banned from having a bible and drinking of the cup, which contradicts Christ if you take him literally in John 6
I’m not certain what the “banned from having a Bible” line has to do with the issue at hand; in fact, it’s an assertion of dubious merit. Nevertheless, the “drinking of the cup” is only a contradiction of Christ if you assume that the bread is strictly “body” and the wine is strictly “blood”. That’s not the interpretation that the Church has made through the years.
I’m not the only one who believes this, its apparent that the early church in the NT understood it the same way
References, please?
, and if you were to ask other “Catholics”, many would tell you the same.
The question wasn’t, “do contemporary Catholics believe in the True Presence?”, it was “is the belief in the Eucharist of Apostolic origin?”. You can’t answer the question with the assertion you’ve made here.
There was no establishment of priests in a very hierarchical structure repeating the sacrifice over and over every day to make what Christ did more complete, or to do what Christ sacrifice did not do.
If that’s what you think the Church is attempting to do, then you’re mistaken. The sacrifice isn’t “repeated over and over”; rather, Jesus’ sacrifice is re-presented to the Father, so that we all participate in the Paschal sacrifice. Recall the Passover sacrifice: Jews were required to re-present the Passover sacrifice – and it was so important that if they didn’t, they were no longer allowed to be part of the community! Sounds a whole lot like “you will have no life in you”, doesn’t it? 😉
 
***Thanks to all who participated in this discussion.

This thread is now closed.***
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top