Transubstantiation

[onetimeposter]

As sure as you are in your beliefs…

EVERYONE

Is as sure in their own beliefs.

That’s worth remembering.

 

[Rolltide]

Another question… did Jesus make a mistake when he chose the Apostles, since they were unable to teach anyone Christianity correctly? Transubstantiation was firmly established by 110 AD, which is just 10 years after John.

Actually, that fact alone might cause me to question my faith…

 

[emeraldisle]

Oh please. Christ refers to himself as the bread of life. “This bread” refers to Christ, the bread of life.

Do you really think nobody noticed that passage for 1500 years? Do you really think for 1500 years no Christian was as astute as you in reading scripture? That’s the essence of your argument, whether you realize it or not.

Yes the Lord Jesus says “I am the bread of life” in John 6 and He made the following statements too;

Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. John 8:12

Then Jesus said to them again, “Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. John 10:7

“I am the good shepherd. John 10:11

“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. John 15:1

.

 

[VociMike]

One could argue the Catholic position is nothing if not controlling.

" Those who were searching for the consolation of heaven or the forgiveness of sins could not secure these benefits without the intervention and interposition of the institution of the church, and its authorized ministers. Salvation had been institutionalized."

Alister McGrath - Christianity’s Dangerous Idea

If you think that the truth is controlling then yes, the Catholic position is controlling. All depends on how you want to define your terms.

BTW, I don’t believe you’ve anwered my earlier questions regarding your faith in the bible (why do you turn off your skepticism for the bible, but not the rest of Catholicism?), or my question as to what non-heretic taught the Protestant version of the Eucharistic reality before the 16th century. Care to offer your thoughts on these two questions?

 

[VociMike]

Yes the Lord Jesus says “I am the bread of life” in John 6 and He made the following statements too;

Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. John 8:12

Then Jesus said to them again, “Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. John 10:7

“I am the good shepherd. John 10:11

“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. John 15:1

.

Yeah, so?

 

[emeraldisle]

Are you saying that it was much harder to figure out what to believe as a Christian in 325 AD because they didn’t have a defined scripture yet, despite being quite close in time to the Apostles?

I’m saying that I live in the reality of the fact that I’m living in 2008 AD and that I have the Scriptures, which clearly tell me that the bread is bread and it’s to be eaten in remembrance of the Lord Jesus’ perfect sacrifice.

Also, how did the “Bible” come to be? I’m not talking about the individual books of the Bible; they were inspired by God, without a doubt, and all of them were available by 100 AD. HOWEVER… the collection of books known as the Bible didn’t exist until around 400 AD. Precisely HOW was it decided which books were inspired? The Apostles were all dead by that point, and there’s no list of “Biblical” books in the Bible. So… does that mean it took the “interpretation of men” to compile it!!! If so, how did that occur, precisely?

The Lord Jesus read from the Scriptures in the synagogue, now how did these Scriptures come to be? Who decided that the Scriptures that the Lord Jesus read from where the inspired written word of God?

There is no statement in the Scriptures that the bread which is eaten in remembrance of the Lord Jesus’ perfect sacrifice is the actual flesh of the Lord Jesus. However there is a very clear statement in Gods written word that the bread which is eaten in remembrance of the Lord Jesus’ perfect sacrifice is indeed bread.

For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes. 1 Cor 11:26

.

 

[VociMike]

As sure as you are in your beliefs…

EVERYONE

Is as sure in their own beliefs.

That’s worth remembering.

So? Are you arguing that because some people are wrong but they think that they are right, therefore everybody who thinks that they are right must be wrong? That is the most trivial of logical fallacies.

Do you believe truth cannot exist because some people believe false things?

 

[VociMike]

There is no statement in the Scriptures that the bread which is eaten in remembrance of the Lord Jesus’ perfect sacrifice is the actual flesh of the Lord Jesus. However there is a very clear statement in Gods written word that the bread which is eaten in remembrance of the Lord Jesus’ perfect sacrifice is indeed bread.

For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes. 1 Cor 11:26

I’m still waiting for you to tell us all the countless bishops and theologians who taught this position in the 2nd century, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th. For the sake of truth, please post your list ASAP.

 

[onetimeposter]

If you think that the truth is controlling then yes, the Catholic position is controlling. All depends on how you want to define your terms.

BTW, I don’t believe you’ve anwered my earlier questions regarding your faith in the bible (why do you turn off your skepticism for the bible, but not the rest of Catholicism?),

I do not believe the Bible is inerrant. This is along the lines of what I believe of the Bible:

The Bible is… As a source of wisdom, personal prayer, and devotion, we believe the Bible can bring us closer to God. It remains one of our best ways of experiencing God’s continuing work of creation and liberation in the world, while offering us forgiveness, healing, and new life in Jesus.

… the various books that make up the Bible are the stories of two ancient communities trying to be faithful to God under difficult circumstances-ancient Israel and the early Christian movement-and some of what was experienced and written then doesn’t fit with today’s world. We don’t condone slavery, for example, or stone those who commit adultery.

I am skeptical of the Catholic Church because, although they have softened their public tone, but they literally believe that the Church is our means of salvation.

Cyprian of Carthage said **" there can be no salvation for anyone except in the Church" **

and

"[O]utside the Church there is no Holy Spirit, sound faith moreover cannot exist, not alone among heretics, but even among those who are established in schism".

and

"When we say, ‘Do you believe in eternal life and the remission of sins through the holy Church?’ we mean that remission of sins is not granted except in the Church"

Now you can see why I’m skeptical. There is no salvation but through the Church?

or my question as to what non-heretic taught the Protestant version of the Eucharistic reality before the 16th century.

No idea.

Care to offer your thoughts on these two questions?

 

[Rolltide]

The Lord Jesus read from the Scriptures in the synagogue, now how did these Scriptures come to be? Who decided that the Scriptures that the Lord Jesus read from where the inspired written word of God?

The canon of the Tanakh and Torah were not closed until after the death of Jesus…It took the work and collaboration of Jewish high priests to eventually determine their canon. So how was Jesus able to fill in the blanks? Easy. He ALSO learned through Jewish ORAL tradition, which he learned from the high priests at the temple.

 

[Rolltide]

Ok. So, besides Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthodoxy, the following branches and heretical sects of Christianity existed before 1500 (There are a few other very small groups, but the rest are pretty much denounced by all Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox today):

Gnosticism
Docetistism
Arianism
Bogamilism
Nestorianism
Manichaeism
Monophysism
Monothelitism
Donatism
Waldensians
Catharism
Lollards
Hussites
Iconoclasts
Jansenism
Marcionism
Millenialism
Montanism
Patripassianism
Pelagianism/Semipelagianism
Sabellianism

So, there’s a list of ALL the other groups that existed before 1500. How many believed in a symbolic presence?

(I’ll start you off… the Gnostics, Docetists, and the Arians did…)

Next, ask whether any of them are true branches of Christianity.

The Arians completely reject the Trinity also. Surely they are not the true branch…

The Gnostics and Docetists do not use most of the Biblical canon, but instead use Gnostic gospels. They also reject the divinity of Jesus. Surely they are not the true branch…

Of the rest, some believe in a symbolic presence, but also believe in other heresies that most Protestants would reject. Others accept the Real Presence. SURELY there must be someone who isn’t clearly a heretic to even Protestants that believed in a symbolic Eucharist. Is there not a single person that believed this?

 

[emeraldisle]

I’m still waiting for you to tell us all the countless bishops and theologians who taught this position in the 2nd century, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th. For the sake of truth, please post your list ASAP.

God is Truth and He has revealed His Truth to us in His written word. So I make no apology for presenting Gods Truth to you from His written word.

Now God has clearly revealed to us in His written word that the bread which is eaten in remembrance of the Lord Jesus’ perfect sacrifice is indeed bread.

Now I’m still waiting for you to post the statement from the Scriptures that say that the bread which is eaten in remembrance of the Lord Jesus’ perfect sacrifice is His flesh.

.

 

[sebestt]

poor emeraldisle…ya just got to feel sorry for him/her. That is why I have been praying so much for him/her. He begins to use sarcasm when he/she thinks others do not agree with his/her personal fallible interpretation of scripture. It is okay to be wrong emeraldisle…it is okay…breath in…breath out…

It is a shame because he/she has been given the info he continuously asks for numerous times. It is like one of my students who argues until they are blue in the face and you know they are just wrong. I will pray some more for you emeraldisle.

 

[emeraldisle]

The canon of the Tanakh and Torah were not closed until after the death of Jesus…It took the work and collaboration of Jewish high priests to eventually determine their canon. So how was Jesus able to fill in the blanks? Easy. He ALSO learned through Jewish ORAL tradition, which he learned from the high priests at the temple.

So the Lord Jesus was reading from Scriptures that were not authorized? Was He waiting on some men to authorize His own Scriptures??

The Lord Jesus couldn’t be sure that His Scriptures which He read from were the real thing??

Now I understand why some people have a major problem with accepting the Truth in the Scriptures re the fact that bread which is eaten in remembrance of the Lord Jesus’ perfect sacrifice is indeed bread.

.

 

[Rolltide]

So the Lord Jesus was reading from Scriptures that were not authorized? Was He waiting on some men to authorize His own Scriptures??

The Lord Jesus couldn’t be sure that His Scriptures which He read from were the real thing??

Of course not. Jesus knew precisely which ones were inspired, since He was the one that inspired them. As I recall, even those present in the temple were amazed by his teachings…

Now I understand why some people have a major problem with accepting the Truth in the Scriptures

Indeed. To do so without some type of authority to back up one’s interpretation would be foolish.

 

[VociMike]

God is Truth and He has revealed His Truth to us in His written word. So I make no apology for presenting Gods Truth to you from His written word.

Now God has clearly revealed to us in His written word that the bread which is eaten in remembrance of the Lord Jesus’ perfect sacrifice is indeed bread.

All this means is that you can’t offer a single Christian from the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th or 15th century to support your interpretation. And this doesn’t bother you? Wow!

Now I’m still waiting for you to post the statement from the Scriptures that say that the bread which is eaten in remembrance of the Lord Jesus’ perfect sacrifice is His flesh.

Why would you still be waiting when the Last Supper discourses are well known to both you and us, and have been mentioned in this thread? Anyway, your wait is over. Just read John 6 and the Last Supper discourses.

 

[Rolltide]

Emeraldisle,
I’m going to ask this question again, because the more I think about it, the more serious it actually is:

Did Jesus err in picking his disciples since they failed to teach anyone the truth about a symbolic Communion? (There are NO sects of Christianity before 1500 that believed in symbolic Communion that weren’t heretical in some other serious way…) If not, why did their beliefs completely die out until 1500? I’m not talking about a majority here either, I’m literally talking about almost 100% of non-heretical Christians believing in either the Real Presence.

At this point, I’d accept even ONE PERSON’S TESTIMONY from outside of the Bible that this belief existed… The Bible is inerrant, that is true, but only with regard to content. It still requires an interpretation. No document can interpret itself, not even the Bible!

 

[emeraldisle]

Indeed. To do so without some type of authority to back up one’s interpretation would be foolish.

Indeed, this is why I’m using the authority of Gods written word to show you that the transubstantiation idea is wrong. I mean it’s foolish to use sources outside of the Bible to try to prove that the idea of transubstantiation is correct when God clearly tells us in His written word that it’s wrong.

.

 

[emeraldisle]

All this means is that you can’t offer a single Christian from the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th or 15th century to support your interpretation. And this doesn’t bother you? Wow!

All it means is that I presented to you the Lord Jesus’ interpretation of His own words in John 6.

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63

.

 

[emeraldisle]

Emeraldisle,
I’m going to ask this question again, because the more I think about it, the more serious it actually is:
Did Jesus err in picking his disciples since they failed to teach anyone the truth about a symbolic Communion?

Did the Lord Jesus err in picking Paul and did the Holy Spirit err in inspiring him to state the following inerrant words;

For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes. 1 Cor 11:26

At this point, I’d accept even ONE PERSON’S TESTIMONY from outside of the Bible that this belief existed…

So you would prefer mans opinion than Gods Truth, that’s in His written word?

The Bible is inerrant, that is true, but only with regard to content. It still requires an interpretation. No document can interpret itself, not even the Bible!

That is why I have explained to you many times that the Lord Jesus interpreted His own words in John 6. Why do you find it so difficult to understand the fact that the Lord Jesus has interpreted His own words in John 6 and so we have no need to re-interpret His words? Is it because His interpretation clearly proves that the idea of transubstantiation is false?

.