Transubstantiation

[CentralFLJames]

[contiuned part III from prior]

(c). Jesus’ Passion is Connected to the Passover Sacrifice where the Lamb Must Be Eaten
Matt. 26:2; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7 - Jesus’ passion is clearly identified with the Passover sacrifice (where lambs were slain and eaten).

John 1:29,36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19 - Jesus is described as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The Lamb must be sacrificed and eaten.

Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38; 19:4,6 - under the Old Covenant, the lambs were examined on Nisan 14 to ensure that they had no blemish. The Gospel writers also emphasize that Jesus the Lamb was examined on Nisan 14 and no fault was found in him. He is the true Passover Lamb which must be eaten.

Heb. 9:14 - Jesus offering Himself “without blemish” refers to the unblemished lamb in Exodus 12:5 which had to be consumed.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 - Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. But Jesus only presents the first three cups. He stops at the Third Cup (called “Cup of Blessing” - that is why Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist – he ties the seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice). But Jesus conspicuously tells his apostles that He is omitting the Fourth Cup called the “Cup of Consummation.” The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to demonstrate that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice, and the sacrifice would not be completed until Jesus drank the Fourth Cup on the cross.

Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26 - they sung the great Hallel, which traditionally followed the Third Cup of the seder meal, but did not drink the Fourth Cup of Consummation. The Passover sacrifice had begun, but was not yet finished. It continued in the Garden of Gethsemane and was consummated on the cross.

Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 18:11 - our Lord acknowledges He has one more cup to drink. This is the Cup of Consummation which he will drink on the cross.

Psalm 116:13 - this passage references this cup of salvation. Jesus will offer this Cup as both Priest and Victim. This is the final cup of the New Testament Passover.

Luke 22:44 - after the Eucharist, Jesus sweats blood in the garden of Gethsemane. This shows that His sacrifice began in the Upper Room and connects the Passion to the seder meal where the lamb must not only be sacrificed, but consumed.

Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23 - Jesus, in his Passion, refuses to even drink an opiate. The writers point this out to emphasize that the final cup will be drunk on the cross, after the Paschal Lamb’s sacrifice is completed.

John 19:23 - this verse describes the “chiton” garment Jesus wore when He offered Himself on the cross. These were worn by the Old Testament priests to offer sacrifices. See Exodus 28:4; Lev. 16:4.

John 19:29; cf. Matt. 27:48; Mark 15:36; - Jesus is provided wine (the Fourth Cup) on a hyssop branch which was used to sprinkle the lambs’ blood in Exodus 12:22. This ties Jesus’ sacrifice to the Passover lambs which had to be consumed in the seder meal which was ceremonially completed by drinking the Cup of Consummation. Then in John 19:30, Jesus says, “It is consummated.” The sacrifice began in the upper room and was completed on the cross. God’s love for humanity is made manifest.

Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; John 19:14 - the Gospel writers confirm Jesus’ death at the sixth hour, just when the Passover lambs were sacrificed. Again, this ties Jesus’ death to the death of the Passover lambs. Like the Old Covenant, in the New Covenant, the Passover Lamb must be eaten.

1 Cor. 5:7 - Paul tells us that the Lamb has been sacrificed. But what do we need to do? Some Protestants say we just need to accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior.

1 Cor. 5:8 - But Paul says that we need to celebrate the Eucharistic feast. This means that we need to eat the Lamb. We need to restore communion with God.

Heb. 13:15 - “sacrifice of praise” or “toda” refers to the thanksgiving offerings of Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which had to be eaten.

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul’s use of the phrase “the cup of blessing” refers to the Third Cup of the seder meal. This demonstrates that the seder meal is tied to Christ’s Eucharistic sacrifice.

John 19:34-35 - John conspicuously draws attention here. The blood (Eucharist) and water (baptism) make the fountain that cleanses sin as prophesied in Zech 13:1. Just like the birth of the first bride came from the rib of the first Adam, the birth of the second bride (the Church) came from the rib of the second Adam (Jesus). Gen. 2:22.

John 7:38 - out of His Heart shall flow rivers of living water, the Spirit. Consequently, Catholics devote themselves to Jesus’ Sacred Heart.

Matt. 2:1, Luke 2:4-7 - Jesus the bread of life was born in a feeding trough in the city of Bethlehem, which means “house of bread.”

Luke 2: 7,12 - Jesus was born in a “manger” (which means “to eat”). This symbolism reveals that Jesus took on flesh and was born to be food for the salvation of the world.

[continued]
James

 

[Rolltide]

Are you now suggesting that the Lord Jesus made a mistake in His interpretation and how explained it to us?

Nope. There is nothing more clear in scripture than the Real Presence. You are simply wrong. Are you suggesting that the Lord Jesus made a mistake in His interpretation and how he explained it to us?

As for your numbers of people argument, well what about all the people who don’t believe the very clear gospel truth. Does this now mean that the gospel isn’t clear or that it isn’t true?

Back to this again. This is a false reasoning, as I pointed out before. Here are the facts:

1. The scripture points to a literal interpretation. It does not say, “This is a symbol of my body”, it says “This is my body”.
2. Roughly 70% of Christians agree with a literal interpretation.
3. For the first 1500 years of the Church, virtually every Christian on the planet agreed with me.

Now, let’s look at your interpretation:

1. A group of men around 500 years ago invented a novel interpretation of scripture that implied that Communion was symbolic. There is absolutely no prior evidence in history to back up this position.
2. After 500 years, only about 30% of Christians, with widely dissenting opinions, believe in this position.
3. In the early church, only Gnostics and Arians supported the position, groups which even the Protestants deny as valid

Now, if you were me… which version of the story looks more troubling?

Gods Truth is Truth and it doesn’t change in relation to the numbers of people who don’t believe it or who do believe it.

.

Amen to that.

 

[CentralFLJames]

[continued part IV from prior]
(d). The Eucharist Makes Present Jesus’ One Eternal Sacrifice; it’s Not Just a Symbolic Memorial
Gen. 14:18 - remember that Melchizedek’s bread and wine offering foreshadowed the sacramental re-presentation of Jesus’ offering.

Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - the translation of Jesus’ words of consecration is “touto poieite tan eman anamnasin.” Jesus literally said “offer this as my memorial sacrifice.” The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.

In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4). So there are two memorials, one sacrificial (which Jesus instituted), and one non-sacrificial.

Lev. 24:7 - the word “memorial” in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is “azkarah” which means to actually make present (see Lev. 2:2,9,16;5:12;6:5; Num.5:26 where “azkarah” refers to sacrifices that are currently offered and thus present in time). Jesus’ instruction to offer the bread and wine (which He changed into His body and blood) as a “memorial offering” demonstrates that the offering of His body and blood is made present in time over and over again.

Num. 10:10 - in this verse, “remembrance” refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. So Jesus’ command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.

Mal. 1:10-11 - Jesus’ command to his apostles to offer His memorial sacrifice of bread and wine which becomes His body and blood fulfills the prophecy that God would reject the Jewish sacrifices and receive a pure sacrifice offered in every place. This pure sacrifice of Christ is sacramentally re-presented from the rising of the sun to its setting in every place, as Malachi prophesied.

Heb. 9:23 - in this verse, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these. Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once. This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world by the priests of Christ’s Church. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space because it was the sacrifice of God Himself.

Heb. 9:23 - the Eucharistic sacrifice also fulfills Jer. 33:18 that His kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever, and fulfills Zech. 9:15 that the sons of Zion shall drink blood like wine and be saved.

Heb. 13:15 - this “sacrifice of praise” refers to the actual sacrifice or “toda” offering of Christ who, like the Old Testament toda offerings, now must be consumed. See, for example, Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which also refer to the “sacrifice of praise” in connection with animals who had to be eaten after they were sacrificed.

1 Peter 2:5-6 - Peter says that we as priests offer “sacrifices” to God through Jesus, and he connects these sacrifices to Zion where the Eucharist was established. These sacrifices refer to the one eternal Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ offered in every place around the world.

Rom. 12:1 - some Protestants argue that the Eucharist is not really the sacrifice of Christ, but a symbolic offering, because the Lord’s blood is not shed (Heb. 9:22). However, Paul instructs us to present ourselves as a “living sacrifice” to God. This verse demonstrates that not all sacrifices are bloody and result in death (for example, see the wave offerings of Aaron in Num. 8:11,13,15,21 which were unbloody sacrifices). The Eucharistic sacrifice is unbloody and lifegiving, the supreme and sacramental wave offering of Christ, mysteriously presented in a sacramental way, but nevertheless the one actual and eternal sacrifice of Christ. Moreover, our bodies cannot be a holy sacrifice unless they are united with Christ’s sacrifice made present on the altar of the Holy Mass.

1 Cor. 10:16 - “the cup of blessing” or Third cup makes present the actual paschal sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb who was slain.

1 Cor. 10:18 - Paul indicates that what is eaten from the altar has been sacrificed, and we become partners with victim. What Catholic priests offer from the altar has indeed been sacrificed, our Lord Jesus, the paschal Lamb.

1 Cor. 10:20 - Paul further compares the sacrifices of pagans to the Eucharistic sacrifice - both are sacrifices, but one is offered to God. This proves that the memorial offering of Christ is a sacrifice.

1 Cor. 11:26 - Paul teaches that as often as you eat the bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death. This means that celebrating the Eucharist is proclaiming the Gospel.

1 Cor. 10:21 - Paul’s usage of the phrase “table of the Lord” in celebrating the Eucharist is further evidence that the Eucharist is indeed a sacrifice. The Jews always understood the phrase “table of the Lord” to refer to an altar of sacrifice. See, for example, Lev. 24:6, Ezek. 41:22; 44:16 and Malachi 1:7,12, where the phrase “table of the Lord” in these verses always refers to an altar of sacrifice.

Heb. 13:10,15 - this earthly altar is used in the Mass to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice of praise to God through our eternal Priest, Jesus Christ.

Much more here:
scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

James

 

[Rolltide]

How can we be assured that Priests have the power to change bread into Jesus Christ, flesh, soul, blood and divinity?

If their is no scriptural basis, then it is the work of men who decided one day that priest’s suddenly possess this power…is this not true?

No, this is a non-sequitor. Even if it is not explicit in the Bible (like the Trinity), it doesn’t make it wrong. Most Protestants believe that if something isn’t in the Bible, you can’t do it. Most Catholics believe that as long as something doesn’t contradict the Bible, you CAN do it.

 

[VociMike]

How can we be assured that Priests have the power to change bread into Jesus Christ, flesh, soul, blood and divinity?

The same way we can be assured of any truth of the faith (including, let’s be clear, the canon of scripture). We can be sure because the Church testifies to it. And that is the only way we can be sure.

If their is no scriptural basis, then it is the work of men who decided one day that priest’s suddenly possess this power…is this not true?

No, of course it is not true. It is a false claim based on a false understanding of the place of the bible in the Christian faith. The bible is not our Catechism, from whence our doctrines flow. The doctrines existed before the New Testament was even written.

Now as to where one can find references in scripture to the priesthood and the confection of the Eucharist, those have already been given. But of course you reject that understanding of those verses, based on no authority but your own intellect - that is to say, on no true authority at all.

 

[emeraldisle]

Are you suggesting that the Lord Jesus made a mistake in His interpretation and how he explained it to us?

The Lord Jesus interpreted His words in John 6 with the following statement;
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

It’s so very clear that the Lord Jesus is speaking spiritually and therefore the bread is in fact bread and He commanded His followers to eat the bread in remembrance of His perfect once for all sacrifice.

The Lord Jesus taught that the bread is indeed bread and Paul, Peter, James and John all believed and taught the same Truth.

As for all the people who believed and taught that the bread was the flesh of the Lord Jesus well they will have to answer to God for not believing what the Lord Jesus taught.

.

 

[VociMike]

The Lord Jesus interpreted His words in John 6 with the following statement;
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

It’s so very clear that the Lord Jesus is speaking spiritually and therefore the bread is in fact bread and He commanded His followers to eat the bread in remembrance of His perfect once for all sacrifice.

The Lord Jesus taught that the bread is indeed bread and Paul, Peter, James and John all believed and taught the same Truth.

As for all the people who believed and taught that the bread was the flesh of the Lord Jesus well they will have to answer to God for not believing what the Lord Jesus taught.

.

Does Christ’s flesh profit nothing?

 

[emeraldisle]

Does Christ’s flesh profit nothing?

Context VociMike Context

41 The Jews then complained about 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 says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’[e]Therefore everyone who has heard and learned[f] from the Father comes to Me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me[g] has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”
52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed,[h] and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”
59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.
60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. 67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?”
68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”*
70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” 71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve. John 6:41-71
*

.

 

[Rolltide]

The Lord Jesus interpreted His words in John 6 with the following statement;
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

It’s so very clear that the Lord Jesus is speaking spiritually and therefore the bread is in fact bread and He commanded His followers to eat the bread in remembrance of His perfect once for all sacrifice.

The Lord Jesus taught that the bread is indeed bread and Paul, Peter, James and John all believed and taught the same Truth.

As for all the people who believed and taught that the bread was the flesh of the Lord Jesus well they will have to answer to God for not believing what the Lord Jesus taught.

.

I’m sorry, but if the only evidence you have is one out-of-context quote from scripture and your say-so, you’re not going to convince me.

We keep having this circular argument.

You say, “But scripture is OBVIOUS!”

The fact that 70% of Christians believe differently than you is absolute proof that it is most certainly NOT obvious!!! Do you not at least see this? If 70% of people can be fooled, then the message is getting lost somewhere! If it was OBVIOUS, then it would be something that almost all people would agree on, like the crucifixion of Jesus. Almost no one except the Jehovah’s Witnesses contest that…We’ve had this discussion for weeks now (on this thread and others), and I still have absolutely no comprehension of how the passage can be read in that way.

I guess it’s just not obvious to me and most of the rest of the world…

 

[JonNC]

The Lord Jesus interpreted His words in John 6 with the following statement;
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

It’s so very clear that the Lord Jesus is speaking spiritually and therefore the bread is in fact bread and He commanded His followers to eat the bread in remembrance of His perfect once for all sacrifice.

The Lord Jesus taught that the bread is indeed bread and Paul, Peter, James and John all believed and taught the same Truth.

As for all the people who believed and taught that the bread was the flesh of the Lord Jesus well they will have to answer to God for not believing what the Lord Jesus taught.

.

After rescanning this thread, and though I haven’t found it, I’m sure someone must have brought up 1 Cor. 11:27

[Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. /QUOTE]

If it is, indeed, just bread and wine, why would we be so thoroughly admonished not to eat and drink unworthily?

Jon

 

[emeraldisle]

I’m sorry, but if the only evidence you have is one out-of-context quote from scripture and your say-so, you’re not going to convince me.

The Lord Jesus’ statement in John 6:63 is not an out of context quote and it’s so obviously not my quote so you have a problem with what the Lord Jesus taught.

We keep having this circular argument.

Not a circular argument but a disagreement on whether one believes what the Lord Jesus taught

You say, “But scripture is OBVIOUS!”

Again it’s not what I’m saying, it’s what the Lord Jesus has said.

The fact that 70% of Christians believe differently than you is absolute proof that it is most certainly NOT obvious!!!

This is really the heart of your argument, would you rather believe what people say than what the Lord Jesus says.

.

 

[VociMike]

Context VociMike Context

It’s a simple question. The flesh that profits nothing, is that Christ’s flesh?

 

[Rolltide]

The Lord Jesus’ statement in John 6:63 is not an out of context quote and it’s so obviously not my quote so you have a problem with what the Lord Jesus taught.

The humor in this situation is that from my point of view, you are the one who has a problem with what the Lord Jesus taught, and you are believing in what people say, a “man-made” interpretation.

That said, I am absolutely convinced that my interpretation is correct because I have the history to back it up AND the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. You have only your interpretation of Biblical passages. Why should I believe your interpretation is correct. It is NOT obvious to me.

Again it’s not what I’m saying, it’s what the Lord Jesus has said.

Correct. He said it was literally His body. You simply don’t believe what is in front of your eyes.

This is really the heart of your argument, would you rather believe what people say than what the Lord Jesus says.

No, I would not. However, it is the only obvious conclusion.
And as for the heart of my argument, here are the major points:

1. I’m sorry, but the most obvious interpretation of scripture is that Jesus meant “This is my body” literally. Here are some reasons why:

Go back and look at posts 120-121. CentralFLJames has provided TWO POSTS worth of explanation as to why this scripture is to be taken literally. We could go into how Jesus represents the Pascal Lamb, and in the Old Testament, in order for the sacrifice to be complete, the unblemished lamb had to be consumed. We could go into the Revelations argument, about how virtually the entire book is a foreshadowing of the Holy Mass. We could talk about 1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - “touto mou estin to soma.” The statement is “this is really” my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so. We could discuss Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19. In order to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying “this represents (not is) my body and blood.” However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for “represent,” but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for “estin” which means “is.” We could discuss 1 Cor. 11:27-29. In these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.

I could go on and on and on (for space reasons I will leave it at that), but there is so much evidence for the Real Presence among scripture, it is very difficult to come to any other conclusion.

1. Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit protects its interpretation. Any way you look at it, the document has to be interpreted. The fact that we are both interpreting it two different ways means that it CAN be interpreted two different ways. However, my faith allows for my interpretation to be protected.
2. So, it seems obvious from scripture that the Real Presence is fact (contrary to what you believe). BUT… we need to make sure that our interpretation is correct. SO… it’s best to check the historical record. Fortunately, as an historian, I provided NINE POSTS worth of quotes from the early church fathers. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch, people trained by the Apostles themselves, people who KNEW Peter and Paul, attest to the Real Presence. The oldest surviving non-Biblical Christian document on Earth, the Didache, speaks of “not profaning” the Eucharist. To profane literally means to murder, and you can’t murder a symbol. In the first 1500 years of Christianity, almost everyone agreed on the Real Presence. The only groups that dissented from this opinion were clearly heretical, like Gnostics and Arians. Even Protestants reject their claims.
3. Granted, a majority opinion is NOT proof of something, but when the opinion was near 100% for nearly 1500 years, and even today, remains near 70%, it DOES mean something, taken with ALL OF THE OTHER FACTS. Alone, of course, the statistic means nothing.
4. So… there is ample evidence for the position from inerrant scripture itself (although you disagree with it) and there is massive historical evidence to support it (although you say it doesn’t matter). How can that be, if your position is obvious? I believe in a different, but equally “obvious” option, and far more people agree with me. How can I simply trust that your very recent, minority interpretation of the Bible is correct? We’ve provided two posts worth of Biblical exegesis and nine pages of well-respected historical quotes from the early Church. You have given me a couple of lines of scripture and your opinion. Do you see where I’m coming from? Should I not be the slightest bit concerned about that?

Honestly, is there any evidence I could provide that would realistically change your mind?

 

[toaslan]

I’ve got to commend you guys on your patience with Poster-Tuned-To-Transmit-Only.

 

[mesl4]

I don’t think you are understanding his response. After the consecration, the “bread” is NOT real bread, because it is not bread. It is Christ’s flesh (body, blood, soul, and divinity), and only Christ’s flesh (body, blood, soul, and divinity). Just because it looks like bread does not mean that it is bread. And just because Gummy Worms look like worms they are not worms, they are candy.

Of course it is hard to believe; God has to require faith. Don’t you think it’s ridiculous that a person could rise from the dead and fly up to heaven? You would, except that you have faith.

That quote has been dealt with throughout the thread, I think. In my opinion they fully support Christ’s declaration of transubstantiation.

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

Christ was saying that the words he speaks are “spirit”. You think that this means he is saying the words he speaks are “symbolic,” yes? I do not agree. In the first sentence he is saying the (Holy) Spirit gives life but the flesh profits nothing. He is saying to us that we must believe with faith, by the grace of the Holy Spirit (Holy Spirit giving grace = Spirit giving life), because our flesh (senses) will not be able to comprehend this great mystery, it will profit nothing. The words he speaks to you are spirit, they should be grasped by faith (as opposed to the flesh’s senses), and they are life (grace, a doctrine being revealed by God).

If he had meant his words were symbolic with that quote, then no one would have left him. Who would say that this is a hard teaching? What’s so hard about eating a piece of bread symbolizing, Jesus? His disciples understood what he was saying and they left him because of it.

Peace be with you! :bounce:

AMEN! This is the best answer to my question that I’ve read so far! You are specifically addressing the verse (63) I asked about. Thank you. Very helpful.

 

[sebestt]

emeraldisle said

The Lord Jesus interpreted His words in John 6 with the following statement;
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

It’s so very clear that the Lord Jesus is speaking spiritually and therefore the bread is in fact bread and He commanded His followers to eat the bread in remembrance of His perfect once for all sacrifice.

The Lord Jesus taught that the bread is indeed bread and Paul, Peter, James and John all believed and taught the same Truth.

As for all the people who believed and taught that the bread was the flesh of the Lord Jesus well they will have to answer to God for not believing what the Lord Jesus taught.

I do believe you are right when people will have to answer for transubstantiation. I do not pretend to know the consequences because our God is a God of love.

The ones who do not believe it are sort of the same as the disciples who left him because the teaching was so hard for them to understand. I guess it would be easier to play pretend and eat some bread and wine and call it symbolism than to have faith and know that it is the body and blood of Jesus. The man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura causes that to happen. It is a shame when personal,fallible interpretation gets in the way of the truth. God Bless.

 

[emeraldisle]

That said, I am absolutely convinced that my interpretation is correct because I have the history to back it up AND the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. You have only your interpretation of Biblical passages. Why should I believe your interpretation is correct. It is NOT obvious to me.

Once again I’m explaining to you that the following statement from the Lord Jesus clearly shows us that His words in John 6 are spiritual.

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

Also it’s only your opinion that the Roman Catholic Churches teaching is infallible. You have no biblical evidence for your opinion.

Correct. He said it was literally His body. You simply don’t believe what is in front of your eyes.

No where in the Bible does it say that the bread is the Lord Jesus’ flesh. However there are plenty of Bible references that clearly state that the bread is in fact bread and that it is eaten in remembrance of the perfect once for all sacrifice of the Lord Jesus.

The following words that Paul wrote as he was inspired by the Holy Spirit clearly state that the bread is bread and it is eaten in remembrance of the prefect once for all sacrifice of the Lord Jesus.

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him **eat of the bread **and drink of the cup. 1 Corinthians 11:26-28

The bottom line is that the Lord Jesus clearly taught that the bread was bread and that it was to be eaten in remembrance of His perfect sacrifice. Also Paul, Peter, James and John all believed this true teaching from the Lord Jesus and so do I.

As for all the other people who believe the following; it looks like bread, it tastes like bread, it is bread but it’s not bread it’s the Lord Jesus’ flesh, well what can I say.

Where is your evidence for your absolute statement that until around 1500 AD absolutely no one believed that the bread was in fact bread and not the flesh of the Lord Jesus? I have given you clear biblical evidence that Paul believed the bread was bread and it was to be eaten in remembrance of the Lord Jesus’ perfect sacrifice. When did Paul live and who did he teach?

Can you show me from Gods word that anyone believed the bread was the flesh of the Lord Jesus?

Can you show me from the Scriptures that God instructed His children to eat human flesh?

Please give me answers from the Bible and not disputed quotes from non-biblical sources.

.

 

[VociMike]

Can you show me from the Scriptures that God instructed His children to eat human flesh?
.

You continue to ask this question, and in so doing you continue to deny the Incarnation.

 

[onetimeposter]

You continue to ask this question, and in so doing you continue to deny the Incarnation.

You never answer his question, thats why he keeps asking.

 

[sebestt]

emeraldisle has been continuously given the answer he/she asks but refuses it and continuously asks over and over again. For some it will never sink in. You just have to shake your head and just pray.