I'm not ignoring anything that's in the text. I am disagreeing with your particular spin on it because I - and most Christians - believe it to be erroneous and novel, that I don't think the text means what you want it to mean. See the difference? I've already said I disagree with your interpretation and have moved on from that point, and would respectfully ask you to do the same and, perhaps, if you would be polite enough, engage with the effectual words of the Lord in the Last Supper Institution narratives.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Catholic Eucharist vs the Bible version - are they the same?
- Thread starter BobRyan
- Start date
Your evidence for this generalization?????? You have none!
It is quite obvious why you want to move on - you have not provided any rational reasonable exegetical based answers to any of the contextual based objections to your theory.
Are you going to drop all references to John 6 when you move on to the Lord's Supper passage????? I sincerely doubt it.
You want your cake and eat it too! You want me to drop the contextual based reasons that completely obliterate your position but move on to the Lord's Supper which, you want to build upon your false interpetation of John 6when it has no contextual relationship to John 6 whatsoever - just a leap in the dark.
<Sigh> I've already given the evidence for the correct (IMO) contextual interpretation of the Bread of Life Discourse. I don't propose to go over it again for you; doubtless you will continue to apparently wilfully ignore what I've said.
26 ¶ And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
"This is my body" cannot be seriously understood as His literal flesh and blood body because he was still living in his literal flesh and blood body.
So there is nothing "effectual" about his words whatsoever, he is using metaphors of himself just as he has done throughout the gospels - "I am the light..door, vine..etc.
Neither could anyone present be eating his literal flesh as was seated before them.
You cannot make it mean one thing at the institution of the Supper and another thing after the cross.
I have addressed everythng you have said, while you have not addressed a single solitary thing I have said except for generic non-contexual based assertions and denials. I demonstrated that your God "outside of time" theory application to the present tense in regard to Abraham's jusfication is completely false - but no response to the evidence. I addressed your idea that John 6:51-58 is never contextually denied to be literal (v. 60 is a denial that those words are to be understood in a PHYSICAL sense) but no response. You make unfounded assertions and when they are confronted and exposed you just jump to something else until you run out of places to jump and then want everything dropped because you have given your unfounded assertions which have been exposed and disproven.
The truth is that it is you that has been the one willfully ignoring the evidence over and over again.
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually it could be seriously understood as His literal flesh and those present would be eating His literal flesh if the Jesus had transubstantiated the bread and wine into His body and blood at the Last Supper as Catholics believe happens at Mass.
QUESTIONS:
1. Did Jesus bless the bread and wine?
2. Did jesus say "this is my body" and "this is my blood" in regard to the bread and wine?
3. Therefore, did the apostles actually and literally partake of Christ's body and blood right then and there?
4. Were there noticable bite marks on his literal body seated before them or blood missing from his literal body seated before them? Didn't they actually eat of the body seated before them???
5. If they did not literally eat of the body seated right before them, then does not make Christ's word "This is" and their partaking empty of any literal partaking of his body right then and there or any other time?
6. If they did not literally eat of the literal body seated before them, or drink of the blood in that literal body seated before them then the words "This is my body" and "this is my blood" cannot possibly be taken literal then or any other time.
Last edited by a moderator:
1. Yes.
2. Yes
3. The Apostles partook of His Body and Blood. In order to fully answer your question, you need to define what you mean by 'actually and literally' and then we will need to talk about accidents and substance.
4. No - the explanation for this will be found in our exploration of #3 above
5. Ditto
6. Incorrect logic in the light of #3, #4 and #5
2. Yes
3. The Apostles partook of His Body and Blood. In order to fully answer your question, you need to define what you mean by 'actually and literally' and then we will need to talk about accidents and substance.
4. No - the explanation for this will be found in our exploration of #3 above
5. Ditto
6. Incorrect logic in the light of #3, #4 and #5
Ah, but it isn't! Just as it was at the Last Supper, so it is now - the bread and wine consecrated by Him were then - and are now - turned into His Body and Blood.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nope, I've answered your question about redemption and time, I've answered your point about the tense of the Bread of Life Discourse - see v.51 in particular and what I said about that. You have disagreed with my answers - fair enough, that's what a discussion/ debate board is all about - but don't accuse me of ignoring your points!
So you are demanding there are TWO literal bodies present at this supper??
Does not your interpretation demand that must be the case or is one not as LITERAL as the other?
So you have TWO literal bodies present at this Supper. One that is visible and seated that all can see is flesh and blood and one that is visible but all can see is not flesh and blood.
Transubstatiation demands they were partaking of his LITERAL flesh and blood body that was SEATED as it is only that ONE which went to the cross. The bread and wine never went to the cross. So where are the bite marks in his literal flesh and body that was seated?????
We need to talk about what you mean by 'literal' in order to explore this point further.
If we need to talk about that there is no hope at all for this discussion! The body seated at the table is the only body Jesus lived and died and rose again in. It is either that body or it is not - period. There is no such thing as an immaterial body of flesh and blood - nada!
Last edited by a moderator:
It is easy to discern between the spirit of error and the Spirit of truth. The Spirit of truth compares spiritual things with spiritual things to teach the truth instead of with "man's wisdom" = human philosophy
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
The Spirit of error compares spiritual things WITH philosophy and traditions of men to teach their errors:
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. - Col. 2:8
Let us see according to which method the MECHANICS of the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation is taught!
Where else in Scripture is transubstantiation ever taught or occurred where the substance is changed without any difference in its chemical make up, appearance or taste.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thomas Helwys
New Member
For this once because I think it bears repeating, I'll do as another member here frequently does and quote myself:
Transsubstantiation is perhaps the most preposterous doctrine which the human mind has been asked to accept. It would signify that on the occasion of the Last Supper in the guest chamber at Jerusalem Christ's person had been present twenty-three-fold at the same instant: He was present before the Apostles in body; every morsel of the bread eaten by the eleven disciples is supposed to have been the living person of Christ, and every sip of wine which they drank is likewise supposed to have been Christ, body and soul, flesh and blood.
It is inconceivable that human beings could invent such an illusion. No man and no spirit can multiply himself. Not even God can do so. No one can convert himself into another form and yet remain what he really is. Christ could not sit before His apostles as a man while they were partaking of Him in the shape of bread and wine. Christ could not eat Himself, for He also partook of the bread of which He gave to His disciples. He was eating His own body, according to the Roman Catholic view. There are no words adequate to brand this doctrine as the supreme exhibition of human delusion.
Further, the RCC teaches that the same transsubstantiation is offered daily by its priests and that when they pronounce the words: "This is my body; this is my blood", every crumb of bread and every drop of wine consecrated by them are changed into the person of Christ. On this assumption RC priests presume a power which not even God Himself possesses because not even He can bring about the inherently impossible.
Roman Catholics may protest all they want that this is an unfathomable mystery, a mystery of the faith, but the untruth of this doctrine remains. The word "mystery" can be used to cover any human fallacy. Words are always available, even if they convey no sense.
There is not a shred of evidence anywhere in the New Testament to support this preposterous view. To be a Roman Catholic and to accept such things means one must put his mind aside and scripture aside and blindly accept what he is told by the clerical hierarchy.
Transsubstantiation is perhaps the most preposterous doctrine which the human mind has been asked to accept. It would signify that on the occasion of the Last Supper in the guest chamber at Jerusalem Christ's person had been present twenty-three-fold at the same instant: He was present before the Apostles in body; every morsel of the bread eaten by the eleven disciples is supposed to have been the living person of Christ, and every sip of wine which they drank is likewise supposed to have been Christ, body and soul, flesh and blood.
It is inconceivable that human beings could invent such an illusion. No man and no spirit can multiply himself. Not even God can do so. No one can convert himself into another form and yet remain what he really is. Christ could not sit before His apostles as a man while they were partaking of Him in the shape of bread and wine. Christ could not eat Himself, for He also partook of the bread of which He gave to His disciples. He was eating His own body, according to the Roman Catholic view. There are no words adequate to brand this doctrine as the supreme exhibition of human delusion.
Further, the RCC teaches that the same transsubstantiation is offered daily by its priests and that when they pronounce the words: "This is my body; this is my blood", every crumb of bread and every drop of wine consecrated by them are changed into the person of Christ. On this assumption RC priests presume a power which not even God Himself possesses because not even He can bring about the inherently impossible.
Roman Catholics may protest all they want that this is an unfathomable mystery, a mystery of the faith, but the untruth of this doctrine remains. The word "mystery" can be used to cover any human fallacy. Words are always available, even if they convey no sense.
There is not a shred of evidence anywhere in the New Testament to support this preposterous view. To be a Roman Catholic and to accept such things means one must put his mind aside and scripture aside and blindly accept what he is told by the clerical hierarchy.
I am not demanding anything.
But if Jesus made it so then it was so.
Yes, if Jesus made it so then both the physical body of Jesus and the transubstantiated bread would be "literal bodies present at the supper".
Do you doubt that God could do so if He thus willed it to be?
Neither Jesus, the Bible, the ECF, nor history can bear this out. There was, and always has been "only one Christ." The only other "Christs" in history are false christs, such as the Mormon Christ, the J.W. Christ, etc. Their perception of who Christ is, is wrong. They rob him of his deity, make him a created being, etc.
That is a big IF. IF he thus willed. But he didn't. He never wills anything that is either against his nature (and that would be against his nature), or against his will.
Where is the flesh and blood of Jesus at this moment?
In Heaven?
How would that be possible if Heaven is not a place of physical material (which it is not)?
Thomas Helwys
New Member
Again, from me 
:
Further, the RCC teaches that the same transsubstantiation is offered daily by its priests and that when they pronounce the words: "This is my body; this is my blood", every crumb of bread and every drop of wine consecrated by them are changed into the person of Christ. On this assumption RC priests presume a power which not even God Himself possesses because not even He can bring about the inherently impossible.
:Further, the RCC teaches that the same transsubstantiation is offered daily by its priests and that when they pronounce the words: "This is my body; this is my blood", every crumb of bread and every drop of wine consecrated by them are changed into the person of Christ. On this assumption RC priests presume a power which not even God Himself possesses because not even He can bring about the inherently impossible.