Transubstantiation?

[fellowChristian]

Jesus established more than one church…NO!

**Matthew 16:18 **
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

?Church? - singular

**John 10:16 **
I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be **one flock, one shepherd. **

One ?flock? - not 25,000+

**Ephesians 1:22 **
And he put all things beneath his feet and gave **him as head over all things to the church **

**Colossians 1:18 **
He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he himself might be preeminent.
19
For in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell,
20
and through him to reconcile all things for him, making peace by the blood of his cross (through him), whether those on earth or those in heaven.
21
And you who once were alienated and hostile in mind because of evil deeds
22
he has now reconciled in his fleshly body through his death, to present you holy, without blemish, and irreproachable before him,
23
provided that you persevere in the faith, firmly grounded, stable, and not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, am a minister.
24
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of **his body, which is the church, **

**Ephesians 2:14-16 **
For he is our peace, he who made both one and broke down the dividing wall of enmity, through his flesh,
15
abolishing the law with its commandments and legal claims, that he might create in himself **one new person **in place of the two, thus establishing peace,
16
and might reconcile both with God, in one body, through the cross, putting that enmity to death by it.

Ephesians 4:4
4
**one body **and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call;

**Church is the ?body? of Christ- only one body **

Matthew 18:15-17
15
"If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
16
If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
17
If he refuses to listen to them,** tell the church**. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

?Tell the church? - which church?

in case you would like to finish this on your own click here…

Bible Christianity
biblechristiansociety.com/booklets/One%20Church.txt

 

[mercygate]

++++++++++++
Most of the errors coming out of RCC are all similar in form. One of these errors is a consistent and arbitrary pattern of embracing “either/or” thinking and interpretation. But actions in scripture are rarely an either/or thing. Scripture is timeless and integrates old with new in a seamless way and nearly always relates to multiple things to cross ratify scripture. There are also many core beliefs in RCC that arise from Out right denial of scripture and adding their own "traditions to it, fallacies in reason and logic that all come from Mortal men who sit themselves above God’s word- usually of the form (the RCC knows more than God and we are adding to his word since he can’t possbile know it all and we need our traditons and dogmas to keep people tied to our apron strings) “anti-authority” (Pope authority and not God’s!) Who are you trying to kid?! which is literally the spirit of the age. This is why having the linkage to apostolic (This is why NO one has to be tied to a “church” and moral men who call themselves infaliable) teaching is necessary in this modern time to get a contextual link The Catholic Church has it 100% right on what is going on at the last supper.The Catholic church and the people they keep bound to it may be very surprised one day to find out that they actually did have it wrong AND GOD WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG!
colboltblue

colboltblue, can you please respond to post #92?

**Are you suggesting that Paul’s personal revelation contradicts the synoptic Gospels and the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John? Are you suggesting that the Mass represents a “repeated sacrifice”?

Do I understand you correctly?**

Thank you.

 

[JTBT]

Baptist

Who founded it?

John Smith &
Thomas Hewys c.1609

What were they before that?

Anglicans aka Church of England

Who founded it?

King Henry viii c. 1534

What was he before that?

Catholic

Who founded it?

Jesus the Christ c.33 a.d.

you need to do some more research on this one. Baptist existed at the same time a Luther. And Before, there are even those who believed in believers Baptism (defining mark of a Baptist) in the Catholic Church. like the Apostles

 

[mercygate]

you need to do some more research on this one. Baptist existed at the same time a Luther. And Before, there are even those who believed in believers Baptism (defining mark of a Baptist) in the Catholic Church. like the Apostles

No Catholic would deny that the Apostles believed in “believers baptism.” The Catholic Church believes in “believers’ baptism.” But the New Testament does not give absolute testimony to belivers’ baptism only nor does the actual practice of the Church in the immediate sub-apostolic age.

Now back to topic. Transubstantiation.

 

[mikeledes]

John 6:51-58 is to be interpreted literally and is one of the strongest passages that testify to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In the Gospel of John, there is a certain pattern that helps to shed light on John 6. Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous statement, it is usually followed by a misunderstanding/question, and this, in turn, is followed by a clarification either by Jesus or the Evangelist. So, this is the basic outline of this pattern:

1. **Ambiguous Statement by Jesus **
2. Misunderstanding/ Question
3. Clarification

Now here are some examples from the Gospel of John:

John 2:19-21

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days? But He was speaking of the temple of His body."

John 3:3-5

Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?Jesus answered, "Truly Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

John 4:32-34

"But He said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” So the disciples were saying to one another, 'no one brought Him anything to eat, did he? Jesus said to them, " My Food is to do the will of Him who sent me and to accomplish His work."

John 8:31-34

So Jesus was saying to those Jews who believed in Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered Him, "We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, “You will become free.” Jesus answered them, "Truly, Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.

Now let’s look at John 6:51-53 and see if it fits the Ambiguous Statement/Question/Clarification pattern:

"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat? So Jesus said to them, Truly, Truly, I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in yourselves.

So, following the established pattern, verse 53 is a clarification of verses 51-52. If he were merely speaking figuratively, then we would have expected the literal meaning of the “figurative” langauge he used, as it happens in the verses I gave above and in many other places in the Bible. Instead, what we see in verse 53 is a reaffirmation of what the Jews understood Jesus to mean. So the clarification is that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively. If he were speaking figuratively, He would have indicated that in verse 53.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Here are more examples:

John 8:21-24

**21Then He said again to them, “I go away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come.”
22So the Jews were saying, “Surely He will not kill Himself, will He, since He says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?”
23And He was saying to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.
24"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” **

John 8:26-29

**26"I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I speak to the world."
27They did not realize that He had been speaking to them about the Father.
28 So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.
29"And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him.” **

To be continued…

 

[mikeledes]

The point of the above post is that when Jesus is speaking figuratively, either Jesus Himself or the Gospel writer explains what He means. He often uses progressive revelation as a teaching method, going from ambiguity to greater clarity. There are numerous examples of this in the 4 Gospels. Here are some more:

John 4:10-14

**10Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”
11She said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water?
12"You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?”
13Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again;
14but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” **

John 8:56-58

**56"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
57So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” **

John 10:1-10

**1"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber.
2"But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep.
3"To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
4"When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.
5"A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers."
6This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them.
7So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
8"All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.
9"I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.
10"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. **

John 7:38-39

38"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’"
39But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive

John 12:32-33

**32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” 33 This He said, signifying by what death He would die. **

John 21:18-19

**18 Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. **

Matthew 16:6-12

6 Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “It is because we have taken no bread.”
8 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves because you have brought no bread?[a] 9 Do you not yet understand, or remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you took up? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many large baskets you took up? 11 How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?—but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

This does not happen in John 6.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

John 6:63

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

This verse does not mean that Jesus was speaking figuratively. The word “Spirit” is used to refer to those things that pertain to God and the word “flesh” refers to those things that pertain to sin. We constantly see the Spirit vs. flesh construct thorughout the Bible:

Galatians 5:16

16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

Romans 8:5-6

5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace

So what Jesus meant in John 6:63 was not that he was speaking figuratively. Rather, that His words originate from God (i.e. Spirit) and they are life giving (i.e. life). He said this in response to the rejection of His teaching. Those who were “carnally minded” rejected His teaching, while those who were “spiritually minded” accepted it. If one is in the flesh, one cannot accept His words because the flesh wars against the Spirit, effectively cutting off the person from the source of life. Consequently, the flesh profits nothing because its end is death. Those who are in the Spirit receive life (Romans 8:6). To be “carnally minded” does not mean to be literally minded. It means to have a mind that is in rebellion against God. Those who were in such a state did not accept Jesus’s words.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

When Jesus said that He would give His flesh for the life of the world, the Jews reponded (John 6:52):

**52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” **

This is similar to an earlier response to Jesus’s claim that He is the Bread that came down from heaven (John 6:41-42):

**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’?” **

In the case of the latter, did the Jews understand Jesus correctly, namely, that He literally came down from heaven? They did! Jesus literally - not figuratively - came down from heaven. This is one instance where Jesus was speaking literally and the Jews understood Him to be speaking literally. The other example comes a couple of verses later in John 6. Jesus makes a statement that the Jews take literally and He reaffirms that their basic understanding of what He said is correct (John 6:51-58). Eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood is as literal as His coming down from Heaven. His return to Heaven (ascension) will reaffirm the truths of His origin and of what He said of His flesh and blood. That’s why He responds (John 6:61-62):

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?

His ascension will vindicate His words and thus prove that the words He spoke are spirit and life, that is, that they are of God and are life-giving.

God bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Some have argued that John 6:51-58 is about faith and that Jesus gives the explanation of the “metaphor” prior to actually using the metaphor. However, this goes against Jesus’s established teaching methods. Whenever Jesus explains a parable, the explanation usually comes after he has given the parable, such as in the case of the parables of the sower and the wheat and the tares. If John 6:51-58 were talking about faith, then there would be no controversy because he just talked about faith in v.v. 29 -35. And as I have shown in two other posts, the established pattern in Jesus’s method of teaching/preaching is one of progressive revelation. He moves from ambiguity to greater clarity, not from clarity to greater ambiguity. So he would not start with the literal meaning first (i.e. faith) and then use the figure, as occurs in John 6. Also, when He does use figurative language difficult to understand, either He or the evangelist explains what He means. Moreover, John 6:56 talks about “abiding.”

56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

The Greek word translated “abiding” is “meno,” which means to continue, stay, remain, etc. Thus the assumption is that the person who abides in Christ has already come to faith in Him and has already been incorporated into Christ. Hence, abiding occurs subsequent to coming to Christ in faith and incorporation. What is being decribed here is an act rooted in faith, but not identical to faith.

John 15:3-4
**3"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. **

1 John 2:28

28Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.

So eating the Body of Christ and drinking His Blood is a means of abiding in Christ. Thus it was most appropriate for Him to start with faith in chapter 6 and then move to abiding in Christ through the Eucharist because coming to faith precedes abiding and one must believe* first *before partaking of the Eucharist. Only those who abide in Christ will continue to have eternal life and will be raised on the last day.

John 15:4-6

**4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. **

God Bless,
Michael

 

[JTBT]

No Catholic would deny that the Apostles believed in “believers baptism.” The Catholic Church believes in “believers’ baptism.” But the New Testament does not give absolute testimony to belivers’ baptism only nor does the actual practice of the Church in the immediate sub-apostolic age.

Now back to topic. Transubstantiation.

Well you already pegged me, I do agree with the Lutherans, Sacramental Presence is what they call it, they disagree with Transub, and Consub.

as far as Believers Baptism well I disagree, but that is another topic, that is if I didn’t think the Bible taught it I wouldn’t believe it.

 

[mercygate]

Well you already pegged me, I do agree with the Lutherans, Sacramental Presence is what they call it, they disagree with Transub, and Consub.

as far as Believers Baptism well I disagree, but that is another topic, that is if I didn’t think the Bible taught it I wouldn’t believe it.

There is another aspect to the “real presence” that has not been addressed on this thread. That is the question of what causes the “real presence” in the Sacrament.

The Orthodox and Catholics believe that the authenticity of the Eucharistic consecration and the Real Presence can be assured only in the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” by which is meant the visible Churches that stand in unbroken sacramental, doctrinal and historic succession with the Apostles.

 

[CentralFLJames]

John 6:51-58 is to be interpreted literally and is one of the strongest passages that testify to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In the Gospel of John, there is a certain pattern that helps to shed light on John 6. Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous statement, it is usually followed by a misunderstanding/question, and this, in turn, is followed by a clarification either by Jesus or the Evangelist. So, this is the basic outline of this pattern:

1. **Ambiguous Statement by Jesus **
2. Misunderstanding/ Question
3. Clarification

Now here are some examples from the Gospel of John:

John 2:19-21

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days? But He was speaking of the temple of His body."

John 3:3-5

**Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?**Jesus answered, “Truly Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

John 4:32-34

**“But He said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” So the disciples were saying to one another, 'no one brought Him anything to eat, did he? ** Jesus said to them, " My Food is to do the will of Him who sent me and to accomplish His work.”

John 8:31-34

So Jesus was saying to those Jews who believed in Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered Him, "We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, “You will become free.” Jesus answered them, "Truly, Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.

Now let’s look at John 6:51-53 and see if it fits the Ambiguous Statement/Question/Clarification pattern:

"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat? So Jesus said to them, Truly, Truly, I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in yourselves.

So, following the established pattern, verse 53 is a clarification of verses 51-52. If he were merely speaking figuratively, then we would have expected the literal meaning of the “figurative” language he used, as it happens in the verses I gave above and in many other places in the Bible. Instead, what we see in verse 53 is a reaffirmation of what the Jews understood Jesus to mean. So the clarification is that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively. If he were speaking figuratively, He would have indicated that in verse 53.

God Bless,
Michael

Great post Michael - its a slam dunk.
And if that were not sufficient to non believers they should contemplate on the fact that even those who could not accept this teaching walked away and left Jesus as mentioned by John 6:66. Those that walk away from the clear teaching of real-presence are EXACTLY like those in John 6:66 (ironic number no?) who refused to follow Christ and obey Him. It if also clear that these are of the same ilk as the ones Jesus talks about in other verses where He says “not everyone who calls me Lord Lord will enter into my kingdom”.

The Eucharist is the peak and pinnacle of belief in Jesus and the integration of all that we believe in as the living and full Word of God - the same Word Made Flesh that came down from heaven and took residence in the Arc of the New Covenant (Mary) during Incarnation.

What is AMAZING to me is how anyone calling themselves Christian can accept the miracle of the Immaculate Conception and then reject the plain truth of real presence. Given the historical acceptance of the Church of real-presence all through history it escapes me how suddenly after the Protestant Revolution those calling themselves Christian can be so bold to believe the new teachings from a traitor like Luther over what Jesus and the apostles taught and against what everyone of their Christian predecessors believed for 1500 years.

To me its a sure sign of the times when sin has advanced individual pride and hubris to such a degree that otherwise apparently rational people can be so utterly blind to truth that has been crystal clear for 2000 years. The tension of the disagreement should be a red-flag to any protestant or non-Catholic to re-examine their beliefs.

James

 

[mercygate]

The Eucharist is the peak and pinnacle of belief in Jesus and the integration of all that we believe in as the living and full Word of God - the same Word Made Flesh that came down from heaven and took residence in the Arc of the New Covenant (Mary) during Incarnation.

What is AMAZING to me is how anyone calling themselves Christian can accept the miracle of the** Immaculate Conception** and then reject the plain truth of real presence.

Um. I think you mean the Virgin Birth of Christ. Most people who reject the Real Presence also reject the doctrine of Our Lady’s immaculate Conception.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Um. I think you mean the Virgin Birth of Christ. Most people who reject the Real Presence also reject the doctrine of Our Lady’s immaculate Conception.

Ooops.
How embarrassing - I jumped ahead in my progression.

What I meant was how can a person accept the virginal Incarnation but reject Real Presence?

James

 

[JTBT]

There is another aspect to the “real presence” that has not been addressed on this thread. That is the question of what causes the “real presence” in the Sacrament.

The Orthodox and Catholics believe that the authenticity of the Eucharistic consecration and the Real Presence can be assured only in the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” by which is meant the visible Churches that stand in unbroken sacramental, doctrinal and historic succession with the Apostles.

well again I guess we will have to disagree, I say it is by the power of God, not by the power of a priest.

 

[VociMike]

well again I guess we will have to disagree, I say it is by the power of God, not by the power of a priest.

Nobody claims that priests have some power to pull Christ out of heaven. The question is not power, the question is divine authority. Who has been given the divine authority to consecrate the elements of the Eucharist?

 

[JTBT]

Ooops.
How embarrassing - I jumped ahead in my progression.

What I meant was how can a person accept the virginal Incarnation but reject Real Presence?

James

well then you completly mis-spoke because all orthodox Christians accept the Virgin Birth; but not all accept the real presence.

 

[JTBT]

Nobody claims that priests have some power to pull Christ out of heaven. The question is not power, the question is divine authority. Who has been given the divine authority to consecrate the elements of the Eucharist?

then you are saying it is the Priest who makes it happen, you are just not using those words. Christ Charge was “do this in rememberance of me” so if anyone does this in rememberace of him he is present.

 

[chris_molter]

well then you completly mis-spoke because all orthodox Christians accept the Virgin Birth; but not all accept the real presence.

Who determined that the belief in the Virgin Birth was the litmus test for orthodox Christianity?