• 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!

Transubstantiation…

Status
Not open for further replies.
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Campion said:
Jesus doubles down and affirms he is speaking literally. "Truly, truly..."
Click to expand...
That is not what "truly, truly" means. The words (amen, amen) mean certainly. Jesus speaks the same when He says one must be born again. This is speaking of a spiritual birth.

This does not mean Jesus is not speaking literally. We literally share in Christ's death (spiritually) and we are literally reborn (spiritually).

The Catholic Eucharist comes from pagan rites (which they saw as a patriotic duty) and is more along the lines of Mithraism than Christianity. This is what the RCC scholar I was speaking of called God purifying the pagan practice.
 
C

Campion

Member
JonC said:
That is not what "truly, truly" means. The words (amen, amen) mean certainly. Jesus speaks the same when He says one must be born again. This is speaking of a spiritual birth.

This does not mean Jesus is not speaking literally. We literally share in Christ's death (spiritually) and we are literally reborn (spiritually).

The Catholic Eucharist comes from pagan rites (which they saw as a patriotic duty) and is more along the lines of Mithraism than Christianity. This is what the RCC scholar I was speaking of called God purifying the pagan practice.
Click to expand...


The RCC “scholar” you speak of is clearly in error. Here is St. Justin Martyr, writing in about 155 A.D., describing to the Roman Emperor Antoninus how the pagans were copying the Christian Eucharist.


"For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, 'This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body'; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, 'This is My blood; and gave it to them alone.' Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either or can learn." - St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66
 
Walter

Walter

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Reformed1689 said:
Take the RCC trash and false teaching somewhere else.
Click to expand...

This is a forum for 'Other Christian Discussions'. If you don't like the discussion, take yourself to another forum. You don't have to read a word here. Your anti-Catholic venomous fangs are showing.

An administrator started this thread. I doubt he did so not expecting Catholics to express their opinions and present their church teaching.
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Walter said:
This is a forum for 'Other Christian Discussions'. If you don't like the discussion, take yourself to another forum. You don't have to read a word here. Your anti-Catholic venomous fangs are showing.

An administrator started this thread. I doubt he did so not expecting Catholics to express their opinions and present their church teaching.
Click to expand...
Keyword being CHRISTIAN. Something the RCC is not.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Campion said:
The RCC “scholar” you speak of is clearly in error. Here is St. Justin Martyr, writing in about 155 A.D., describing to the Roman Emperor Antoninus how the pagans were copying the Christian Eucharist.


"For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, 'This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body'; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, 'This is My blood; and gave it to them alone.' Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either or can learn." - St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66
Click to expand...
This is odd, especially since Mithraism predates Christ's birth (in many ways it was pre-Zoroastrian, as Zoroaster denounced aspects of the cult). Ancient covenants were sanctioned by the common meal.
 
canadyjd

canadyjd

Well-Known Member
Campion said:
The "flesh profits nothing" refers to those rejecting Jesus' teaching because they were using their human reasoning, their senses, instead of faith. It's like people today saying what Jesus did was institute a symbol. That is the flesh speaking.

Here's an early Doctor of the Church explaining:

"His meaning is, You must hear spiritually what relates to Me, for he who hears carnally is not profited, nor gathers any advantage. It was carnal to question how He came down from heaven, to deem that He was the son of Joseph, to ask, How can he give us His flesh to eat?All this was carnal, when they ought to have understood the matter in a mystical and spiritual sense. But, says some one, how could they understand what the 'eating flesh' might mean? Then it was their duty to wait for the proper time and enquire, and not to abandon Him.

That is, they are divine and spiritual, have nothing carnal about them, are not subject to the laws of physical consequence, but are free from any such necessity, are even set above the laws appointed for this world, and have also another and a different meaning. Now as in this passage He said spirit, instead of spiritual, so when He speaks of flesh, He meant not carnal things, but carnally hearing, and alluding at the same time to them, because they ever desired carnal things when they ought to have desired spiritual. For if a man receives them carnally, he profits nothing. What then, is not His flesh, flesh? Most certainly. How then says He, that the flesh profits nothing? He speaks not of His own flesh, (God forbid!) but of those who received His words in a carnal manner. But what is understanding carnally? It is looking merely to what is before our eyes, without imagining anything beyond. This is understanding carnally. But we must not judge thus by sight, but must look into all mysteries with the eyes within. This is seeing spiritually. He that eats not His flesh, and drinks not His blood, has no life in him. How then does the flesh profit nothing, if without it we cannot live? Do you see that the words, the flesh profits nothing, are spoken not of His own flesh, but of carnal hearing?"- St. John Chysostom, Homily 47 on the Gospel of John
Click to expand...
I appreciate Chysostom’s argument concerning “the flesh profits nothing”, and he may be right about it, at least partially. The argument that “spiritual words” concerning the Supper actually mean “literal” flesh and blood is far less convincing.

Peace to you

peace to you
 
canadyjd

canadyjd

Well-Known Member
Campion said:
I have no idea if you are saved and neither do you. (Unless you think you have usurped Christ’s rightful judgement of all men.)

You clearly are an unbeliever in the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear. Scripture tells us the Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are children of God. I do know I’m a believer and I haven’t usurped anything. It’s a pity you do not have that assurance.

I believe in Jesus Christ and Him crucified for sins. I am not saved by keeping the Lord’s Supper, I honor my Lord by keeping the supper as a memorial of His death. I’m not saved by a priest saying words over me, I’m saved because the one and only High Priest in heaven makes intercession for me. I’m not saved by praying to holy people that have died, I pray directly to my Lord and my God who died for my sin.

So I agree with you, I do not believe “in” the Lord’s Supper as you do.

peace to you
 
Last edited:
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Like many traditions, transubstantiation is based on needless speculation concerning figurative illustrations of scripture. The Reformed tradition invented a reason why some reject the gospel and others fully embrace it.
 
C

Campion

Member
JonC said:
This is odd, especially since Mithraism predates Christ's birth (in many ways it was pre-Zoroastrian, as Zoroaster denounced aspects of the cult). Ancient covenants were sanctioned by the common meal.
Click to expand...

Christianity isn't in any way related to Mithraism. Post the name and work of the RCC "scholar" who you referenced. So little is known about the cult that I would be surprised to see a RCC scholar arguing against second century primary source evidence.

Mithras was the ancient Persian god of contracts and by your logic one would have to also assert it is therefore related to Judaism, as the Jewish angel Tamiel was the angel of contracts. Mithraism began to be accepted by the Roman legions as they advanced into Persia. They then brought Mithraism back to the empire proper when they returned. People have attempted to draw parallels between Mithraism and Christianity, but from what little is known of the practices of Mithraists the two share no commonalities. Furthermore, as I pointed out, St. Justin, writing to the Roman emperor in 155 A.D., complained that the followers of Mithraism were COPYING Christians, trying to imitate the Christian Eucharist.

Only ancient covenant meal the Christian Eucharist fulfilled was that of the Old Covenant in Exodus 24. You cannot read the institution of the new covenant (Eucharist) narratives without recalling Exodus 24, where after Moses offers the blood of the covenant, he and the others are taken up to eat and drink in the presence of God (communion)...

"And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, 'Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.' Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink. (Exodus 24:8-11, KJV)

The Eucharistic sacrifice is called "the New Testament" by our Blessed Lord (cf. Mt. 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, 1 Cor 11:25)...

"And as ttey 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.' And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.'" (Mt. 26:26-28)

"And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, 'Take, eat: this is my body.' And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, 'This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many'." (Mark 14:22-24)

"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, 'This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.' Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.'" (Luke 22:19-20)

Here is St. Paul quoting our Blessed Lord, "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, 'Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.' After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, 'This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.'" (1 Cor 11:23-25)


In the New Testament, the reality always surpasses the figure. If wine was in the chalice and not Christ's blood, then this would be the first instance in all of Scripture where the figure of something would have surpassed the reality.


Exodus 24 with Moses offering the blood and communion with God is the figure ---> Pointing to and fulfilled in the New Covenant of the Eucharistic sacrifice offered by Christ, the New Moses, offering HIS very body and blood and true communion with God
 
Last edited:
C

Campion

Member
Van said:
Like many traditions, transubstantiation is based on needless speculation concerning figurative illustrations of scripture. The Reformed tradition invented a reason why some reject the gospel and others fully embrace it.
Click to expand...

If only today's Reformed adherents knew what their progenitor taught, they might be in for quite the surprise as Calvin actually taught a proper understanding of the Lord's Supper was a "requisite for our salvation."

Many today don't even believe communion it is necessary, let alone a proper understanding of it being necessary for salvation.

See Calvin's Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper
 
canadyjd

canadyjd

Well-Known Member
Campion said:
"And as ttey 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.' And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.'" (Mt. 26:26-28)
Click to expand...
So, when Jesus was sitting with the disciples with bread and wine and said “this is My body…this is my blood” and passed it around the table, were the disciples literally eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus, who was sitting at the table with them?

Please show me from scripture where partaking of the Lord’s supper is required for salvation.

peace to you
 
C

Cathode

Well-Known Member
Salty said:
From another thread:



So how would you explain to someone that the bread and wine of the Lords Supper do NOT magically turn into the actually blood and body of Jesus Christ.

From Wiki: Transubstantiation - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

I would explain that Jesus didn’t perform “magic “ but that His Words have supernatural power because He is God and can not help but be reality.
Jesus didn’t use magic when He walked on water, transformed water into wine, healed the sick and raised the Dead. He used Supernatural power, not preternatural power.
The whole point of the change is so Christians can receive Jesus Himself in Covenant Communion. If it isn’t Jesus, it isn’t Communion.

The Holy Spirit transforms the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus by supernatural power. Christianity is a Supernatural Religion, not a pagan religion of magic.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Campion said:
Christianity isn't in any way related to Mithraism. Post the name and work of the RCC "scholar" who you referenced. So little is known about the cult that I would be surprised to see a RCC scholar arguing against second century primary source evidence.

Mithras was the ancient Persian god of contracts and by your logic one would have to also assert it is therefore related to Judaism, as the Jewish angel Tamiel was the angel of contracts. Mithraism began to be accepted by the Roman legions as they advanced into Persia. They then brought Mithraism back to the empire proper when they returned. People have attempted to draw parallels between Mithraism and Christianity, but from what little is known of the practices of Mithraists the two share no commonalities. Furthermore, as I pointed out, St. Justin, writing to the Roman emperor in 155 A.D., complained that the followers of Mithraism were COPYING Christians, trying to imitate the Christian Eucharist.

Only ancient covenant meal the Christian Eucharist fulfilled was that of the Old Covenant in Exodus 24. You cannot read the institution of the new covenant (Eucharist) narratives without recalling Exodus 24, where after Moses offers the blood of the covenant, he and the others are taken up to eat and drink in the presence of God (communion)...

"And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, 'Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.' Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink. (Exodus 24:8-11, KJV)

The Eucharistic sacrifice is called "the New Testament" by our Blessed Lord (cf. Mt. 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, 1 Cor 11:25)...

"And as ttey 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.' And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.'" (Mt. 26:26-28)

"And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, 'Take, eat: this is my body.' And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, 'This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many'." (Mark 14:22-24)

"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, 'This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.' Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.'" (Luke 22:19-20)

Here is St. Paul quoting our Blessed Lord, "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, 'Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.' After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, 'This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.'" (1 Cor 11:23-25)


In the New Testament, the reality always surpasses the figure. If wine was in the chalice and not Christ's blood, then this would be the first instance in all of Scripture where the figure of something would have surpassed the reality.


Exodus 24 with Moses offering the blood and communion with God is the figure ---> Pointing to and fulfilled in the New Covenant of the Eucharistic sacrifice offered by Christ, the New Moses, offering HIS very body and blood and true communion with God
Click to expand...
I am not talking about Christianity. I am talking about transubstantiation (the misunderstanding of the RCC).

I actually cannot recall the scholar. He was not talking about the cult but the Roman practice of eating meat and drinking wine that was considered to be the flesh and blood of the gods.

I compared it to the cult because Catholicism is a blend of Christianity and paganism.
 
C

Cathode

Well-Known Member
Campion said:
Jesus doubles down and affirms he is speaking literally. "Truly, truly..."
Click to expand...

That’s right, Jesus words are all we have to go on. If He says that His Flesh real food and Blood real drink, what speck of dust am I to stand in denial of it. His words remain when all things fall into nothingness.

Only Faith granted by the Father can cause a man to believe the Son, so not only was this teaching supernaturally given, it had to be supernaturally received in complete Faith. Without Faith, no one can believe Jesus words here.

If you believe that no words of Christ go out without being accomplished, then you will believe the bread and wine become His Body and Blood by the power of His Word.
 
Last edited:
C

Cathode

Well-Known Member
JonC said:
I am not talking about Christianity. I am talking about transubstantiation (the misunderstanding of the RCC).

I actually cannot recall the scholar. He was not talking about the cult but the Roman practice of eating meat and drinking wine that was considered to be the flesh and blood of the gods.

I compared it to the cult because Catholicism is a blend of Christianity and paganism.
Click to expand...

Catholicism is post messianic Judaism, what you mistake as pagan, is actually from Jewish Apostolic roots.

Remember just about every Pope was killed by Roman pagans for the first 300 years, it was Catholicism that defeated Roman paganism and converted all of Europe to Christ.
Protestantism didn’t exist in those times, if you were Christian you were Catholic.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top