Science vs Transubstantiation

In referring to bread as his real flesh and wine as his real blood was Jesus calling himself a Jewish delicatessen?

Was Jesus speaking of a physical reality or was he teaching a spiritual truth?

[ June 13, 2003, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: Yelsew ]

 

DHK:

The New Testament teaches that our redemption wasn't complete until Jesus had been "raised for our justification". Rom 4:25

"It is finished" is the fulfillment of the Passover of the Old Covenant, through his transformation of it into the New Covenant Passover. It was the day and hour of His entrance into the glory of the Kingdom of God. He drank the wine from the hyssop which he had promised he would not drink until he drank it with us anew in the Kingdom of God. This is what He does, he calls us to the supper of the Lamb. The very same supper of the Lamb.

St. Paul said :
Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 1 Corinthians 5:7-8

St. Paul says Christ our Passover has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast..... He does not say just have "faith alone". St. Paul links the Passover sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross and the Eucharist.

God Bless

 

"Symbolic at this point" is not a bad way of putting it. "The passover lambs were really eaten," as you say. So why did they not really eat Jesus himself? Why didn't they cut him apart and roast his arms and legs and feast on his ribs? If He was really to be eaten as the lambs, they would have done that. Instead they did something else. They did not really roast him and eat him. </font>[/QUOTE]But they did, in the form that Christ instituted! Just as God told the Israelites how to eat the flesh of the passover lamb, Christ told us how to eat the flesh of the Lamb of God. </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly why do you refer to the passover lambs, which were roasted and eaten, and then sneer that "Christ pulls a 2-out-of-3 on us and suddenly gets strictly symbolic at this point." You are claiming the same literal thing was done to the lambs as was done to Jesus; then upon confronted that what was done with Jesus was different, you say it is "in the form that Christ instituted.." That is what I am saying, that it is in a form. And there was absolutely no need whatsoever for there to be a form if His body was right there. The disciples could have bitten off his earlobes and fingertips if it is his literal flesh that must be physically digested. Is the true essence of the gospel faith, repentence, and love, or is it cannibalism? And should we trust our senses or not? Is God literally a "consuming fire"-- as the scripture says He IS-- or "is" this metaphorical? Can the biblical word "is" be understood that way?

Incidentally, in your previous post, why did you italicize the word "strictly" in your rhetorical "...apparently Christ pulls a 2-out-of-3 on us and suddenly gets strictly symbolic at this point"?

Finally, I would inquire about what you think of the biblical use of the word "as." You said, "...those lambs were really sacrificed just as Christ was really sacrificed." You say He was sacrificed "AS those lambs," then later you say it was in a new "form;" therefore not "AS those lambs."

 

"Symbolic at this point" is not a bad way of putting it. "The passover lambs were really eaten," as you say. So why did they not really eat Jesus himself? Why didn't they cut him apart and roast his arms and legs and feast on his ribs? If He was really to be eaten as the lambs, they would have done that. Instead they did something else. They did not really roast him and eat him. </font>[/QUOTE]But they did, in the form that Christ instituted! Just as God told the Israelites how to eat the flesh of the passover lamb, Christ told us how to eat the flesh of the Lamb of God. </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly why do you refer to the passover lambs, which were roasted and eaten, and then sneer that "Christ pulls a 2-out-of-3 on us and suddenly gets strictly symbolic at this point." You are claiming the same literal thing was done to the lambs as was done to Jesus; then upon confronted that what was done with Jesus was different, you say it is "in the form that Christ instituted.." That is what I am saying, that it is in a form. And there was absolutely no need whatsoever for there to be a form if His body was right there. The disciples could have bitten off his earlobes and fingertips if it is his literal flesh that must be physically digested. Is the true essence of the gospel faith, repentence, and love, or is it cannibalism? And should we trust our senses or not? Is God literally a "consuming fire"-- as the scripture says He IS-- or "is" this metaphorical? Can the biblical word "is" be understood that way?

Incidentally, in your previous post, why did you italicize the word "strictly" in your rhetorical "...apparently Christ pulls a 2-out-of-3 on us and suddenly gets strictly symbolic at this point"?

Finally, I would inquire about what you think of the biblical use of the word "as." You said, "...those lambs were really sacrificed just as Christ was really sacrificed." You say He was sacrificed "AS those lambs," then later you say it was in a new "form;" therefore not "AS those lambs." </font>[/QUOTE]I'm going to leave it to you to figure out why the apostles didn't eat Christ's earlobes and fingertips. It's too bizarre for me to pursue. That doesn't change the fact that He chose to give us His flesh and blood in a sacramental manner, which of course precisely avoids connotations of cannibalism (Christ wasn't stupid!). Can you cite a single OT prefigurement of something in the NT that was fulfilled exactly the same in all respects? Do you reject all OT prefigurements that have any differences? You'll sure miss out on a lot if you do!

If you choose not to see the beautiful prefigurement I wrote of regarding the passover lambs, that's OK by me. As far as I'm concerned, arguing with you over the meaning of "as" is the way to madness, and I'm not ready for that (yet?).

I wrote strictly symbolic because the Church does not reject the symbolic nature of the Eucharist, but it does maintain that in addition to a memorial of the Last Supper it is also a re-presentation of the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ, and also the true body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ given to us as true food of eternal life, in addition to the words of eternal life He preached. It's the Catholic notion of both-and again. What may be offensive to you is to us a gift beyond price, freely offered by our Savior who gives of Himself without reservation that we may be saved.

BTW, sorry that you took my light sarcasm as sneering.

 

That is correct. Our redemption became complete with the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The sacrifice of Christ was completed on the cross when Christ said “It is finished.” Then he was buried, and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures (!Cor.15:3,4). That is the gospel message. All who believe on that message by faith alone will be saved. The resurrection is an essential part of that message for without it we would be serving a dead Saviour. There would be no victory over sin, death, or Satan. But the penalty of our sin was paid for on the cross, by the sacrifice of Christ. There is nothing you can do to add to the work of Christ. All of your works are in vain. Jesus paid it all. Your baptism, your confirmation, your receiving of any of the sacraments, your keeping of any of the Ten Commandments, are all in vain.

“For by grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast.” Salvation is to be received by faith. When Jesus said, “It is finished,” He was referring to the sacrifice that would atone for the sins of the world. It was the sacrifice that would be a propitiation before God. He was making an atonement for our sins. He was satisfying the just demands of God. “It is finished!” He had finished His work on the cross. He had finished meeting the legal requirements of the law of God and paying the penalty for our sins. There is no more penalty to be paid. There is nothing more to be added. That is why baptism is superfluous. It is not needed. Jesus paid it all. He doesn’t need man’s puny offer of baptism. Water doesn’t save. Nothing that man does can save. Only Christ can save. One must have faith in Christ that He and He alone can save. That is why salvation is by faith and faith alone.

Look at 1Cor.5:4-8, and see the context of “leaven”
4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Paul is talking about church discipline. He is talking about delivering a person who had committed incest to “Satan for the destruction of the flesh.” The language is very figurative. The unleavened bread is symbolic of sincerity and truth. The leaven in this passage was an unrepentant brother.
It does not teach that all of us are unleavened. It is teaching that as long as the Corinthians tolerated such sin in their midst they were as unleavened.
Your usage of this passage along with John 19:30 to teach “the fulfillment of the Passover of the Old Covenant, through his transformation of it into the New Covenant Passover,” is hermeneutically wrong, or just plain wishful thinking.
Again you use this passage in 1Cor.5, teaching about church discipline to teach: “Paul links the Passover sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross and the Eucharist.” It must take quite an imagination to get that out of this passage. There is no eucharist mentioned in the Bible at all.
DHK

 

From the Catechism of the Caholic Church:

Paragraph 252
"The Church uses the term "substance" (rendered also at times by "essence" or "nature") to designate the divine being in its unity,..."

Prior to this paragraph we see:

Paragraph 251
"In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develope its own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: "substance", "person" or "hypostasis", "relation," and so on."


Where most anti-Catholics fail is in not first attempting to understand what it is that the Church means by the words it uses to convey a teaching.

If you do not understand the meaning of a particular word as used by the Church, it is impossible to aruge intelligently against it, because you have no idea of what you are talking about.

Ron

 

Do you not think it incumbant upon the church to explain itself using common language and terms that do not have hidden meanings?

 

No.

When talking about the supernatural, common language often would not be adequate.

Isn't it incumbant on an intelligent person to first attempt to understand the intended meaning of the other before disputing.

Take the word "saved".

I've got a bunch of empty pop bottles "saved" in my garage.

Shall I now degrade your belief that you are saved, based on my understanding of the word as used above?

Or should I first try to understand what it is that you mean by it?

Besides, the usage of these words by the Church predates either of us. Should the Church constantly have to change the words used to fit changing common language?

Wouldn't doing that merely lead to new charges on your part that the Church is changing doctrine because it changed words to match the ever changing common language?

Ron

 

No.

When talking about the supernatural, common language often would not be adequate.

Isn't it incumbant on an intelligent person to first attempt to understand the intended meaning of the other before disputing.

Take the word "saved".

I've got a bunch of empty pop bottles "saved" in my garage.

Shall I now degrade your belief that you are saved, based on my understanding of the word as used above?

Or should I first try to understand what it is that you mean by it?

Besides, the usage of these words by the Church predates either of us. Should the Church constantly have to change the words used to fit changing common language?

Wouldn't doing that merely lead to new charges on your part that the Church is changing doctrine because it changed words to match the ever changing common language?

Ron </font>[/QUOTE]The onus is on those "commissioned to make disciples" to transfer the meaning of their words to those who may not have that meaning. Thus the church is obligated to communicate every meaning to the lowest common denominator so that there is common ground upon which to build the Church.

The church cannot expect the dirt to form itself into bricks with which to build. Bricks must be formed by the church so that building can take place.

The meaning of every church doctrine must be explained in common usage words or the uncommon words must be defined for the common people. The fault is not with the people, regardless of intelligence, but rather with the church.

The responsibility for communication always rests with those attempting to communicate to others.

 

Yelsew: There is a children's Catechism you could use. It is actually quite good. Been around for over 100 years.
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Catechism/Doit.html

God Bless

 

Words are not defined by the church. That is where all the heresy creeps in. Words are defined by the Bible. If you would allow the Bible alone to define baptism, for example, you would see that it means immersion. It is the "Church" that has redefined it. That is just one of many examples.
DHK

 

Emmersion can mean in liquid or total involvement which is total spiritual engagement. Throwing all ya got into it! Essentially "burying one self" in ones desires or works or studies, or ....! That is emmersion! So baptism can mean by water, or it can mean by spirit! So let's not get hung up on strict baptist doctrine either!

 

The point is that when we talk about Biblical terminology we must use terms that are defined by the Bible itself. In the examples you gave you still defined the Greek word Baptidzo, as immersion, even if it was in a different context. Others have translated it as sprinkling or pouring. They also have applied to infants, which the Bible never does. We must define it according to the Bible, if we are speaking of Biblical terminology. If the church defines it, then which church definition shall we go by? Catholic? SDA? J.W.? New Age?
DHK

 

Understood DHK, but the outward sign, dunking, sprinkling, pouring, etc., is not the reality, only the sign. The bible Speaks of water baptism and Spirit Baptism. The water baptism is the sign, while the spirit baptism is the reality. If it is washing that is 'visualized' by emmersion, how do you wash spirit? Spirit is impervious to water!

 

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "I change matter and claim it changes into something else - but there is no evidence that I am telling the truth" concept of Catholicism - is not found in all of scripture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How nice it would have been for the RCC if that were true.

Christ said nothing about "I change the undetectible substance of bread into the equally undetectible substance of flesh".

In Christ,

Bob

 

As I noted below "Jesus condemned sin in the flesh" and "HE Emptied himself taking on the FORM of a man" just as prior to that "HE existed in the FORM of God".

On earth the "CLAIM" Christ made was not "IF you go to Heaven - to the Throne of God - this is the FORM you will see". A 5'8" middleastern gentleman will not be seated on the throne.

Rather on Earth the claim was "The Son of MAN - as come IN the Flesh". "The Word BECAME flesh".

But when He comes the 2nd time - it is in glory and power in the FORM of God.

In Christ,

Bob

 

No, He did not say it in perhaps a way you would want Him to say it. But he did say it, as I explained it per the link below:

http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/p/wputnam3/John%206.htm

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages
call me blessed. (Luke 1:46-48)

 

Your document says what we non catholics have been saying except for one thing. We believe in our spirit that by consuming the symbol which is a form of bread, that we are demonstrating that we believe what Jesus told his Apostles, and that is, that we are taking Himself into our being through the substitutionary symbol. The difference is in what you say you believe and what you actually believe.

 

Yelsew replied:

Now that is interesting, as I have found that most non-Catholics totally disagree with me here.

Trying to follow you here, I then take it that the bread and wine used remains bread and wine?
That it is "substitutionary" as against it being His actual body and blood?

&lt;scratching my head&gt; Are you saying that "what I believe may not be actually be what I believe"?

How in the world would I ever know what I believe if that is true?

All I know is, when I leave my home in about an hour from now, I will be going to daily Mass and believe that I will be actually consuming his actual (not natural) body and blood. It looks, feels, smells and digests like bread and wine, but it is no longer bread and wine but His body and blood in fact.

Jesus said it in so many words in John Chapter 6, and He instituted it during the Last Supper sequence.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

Then what you are saying here is that you believe what the protestants believe, and that is, that the substance that you consume is the substance in its natural form and that no transubstantiation has occured in the natural realm. All "change" occurs in the spiritual acceptance of Jesus' Words, that is, by belief. Therefore we agree that by belief we are consuming the Body and blood of the Christ, the one who saves us in our belief. Spirit however, consumes no natural food, only spiritual food.

So why then confuse the issue? Why not state it as Paul stated in his letter to the Corinthians.

You see, the protestants see in the eating and drinking of the substitutionary elements, the spiritual reality of doing so. And that reality is the bringing to the forefront of the mind the remembrance of our Lord and Savior Jesus, the Rock upon which the Church is built. We do not similarly celebrate Peter in remembrance, because Peter is not the Savior, nor is Peter the foundation or the rock upon which the church is built.

Therefore, Any who confesses Jesus as Lord and Savior and holds naught against a brother, is worthy to receive the bread and wine from any who is dispensing it in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. There must be no divisions among us...But there are! And those divisions are over rightly and wrongly dividing the Word of Truth.

The Catholic denomination of the Church of Jesus Christ claims itself to be the sole source of "the truth", but that simply is not true because the Catholic church is so steeped in incorrect dogma and false practices as to make itself unapproachable to others who know Jesus in all his righteousness!