Could Transubstantion be true?

Nic

Well-known member
Could Transubstantion be true?
Answer:
Sure, but scripture doesn't affirm the definition required as dogma.

Mod Note.

I looked at this thread for the first time today, and I saw trouble coming. I see that another mod has already deleted a good number of posts.

We have arrived to the point where people are calling each other "L" word, and worse. It's off topic in at least three places. All of this is for protestants to debate with each other on the proper forums. This is NOT that place.


Everyone needs to read Rule 24. Specifically, protestant posters are not to debate each other on the Catholic boards, EO boards, the Secular boards, as they are here for evangelization, not for protestants to debate the finer points of doctrine.

Protestants, most of you know this already, yet you decided to post anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1Thess521

Well-known member
Could Transubstantion be true?
Answer:
Sure, but scripture doesn't affirm the definition required as dogma.
Only if Transubstantion took place Last Supper:
did it?

did the New Covent go into effect at the Last Supper?
Was propitiation made at the Las Supper?
Was the penalty for sins paid for at he Last Supper?

If yes: then the Cross is nearly meaningless;
if no: then Transubstantion did take place at the Last Supper:
 
Last edited:

Nic

Well-known member
Only if Transubstantion took place Last Supper:
did it?

did the New Covent go into effect at the Last Supper?
Was propitiation made at the Las Supper?
Was the penalty for sins paid for at he Last Supper?

If yes: then the Cross is nearly meaningless;
if no: then Transubstantion did take place at the Last Supper:
We can't really debate the issue, but I would say the Lord's Supper is only propitious because of the Cross or at least that what scripture says. A corollary would be could the gospel possibly be propitious before the cross? I'd say yes and why of course, because of the cross.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
We can't really debate the issue, but I would say the Lord's Supper is only propitious because of the Cross or at least that what scripture says. A corollary would be could the gospel possibly be propitious before the cross? I'd say yes and why of course, because of the cross.

did anyone die at the Last Supper?

Hebrews 9:15-17
15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, (diathéké) so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a will (diathéké) is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.17For a will (diathéké) takes effect ONLY at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive."


is 1 Corinthians 15:3
Christ died
for our sins, according to Scriptures

is Colossians 1:21-22
And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you
in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach—
 

balshan

Well-known member
it is not Irrelevant,

We are told Christ DIED for sins: not when He poured wine into a cup
We are told Christ DIED to reconcile us: not when He poured wine into a cup
We are told Christ DIED for the New Covenant to go into effect: not when He poured wine into a cup

We are told that when Jesus left the Last Supper; He told His disciples He had be speaking to them figuratively to the in the past

Note the questions
Is Hebrews 9:15-17 a literal or figurative death?
15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, (diathéké) so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a will (diathéké) is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.17For a will (diathéké) takes effect ONLY at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive."


is 1 Corinthians 15:3 a literal or figurative death?
Christ died
for our sins, according to Scriptures

is Colossians 1:21-22 a literal or figurative death?
And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you
in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach—
Well thought out answer.
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
Could Transubstantion be true?
Answer:
Sure, but scripture doesn't affirm the definition required as dogma.
Of course it could be true.
Do you believe that Moses turned the water of the Nile into blood or was it just symbolic?
Do you believe that Jesus turned water into wine or was it just symbolic?
So there is a precedent for Transubstantiation.
The Chuch teaches that Jesus turned bread into His flesh and wine into his blood because He said so.
And the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Why wouldn't you believe?
 

mica

Well-known member
Of course it could be true.
Do you believe that Moses turned the water of the Nile into blood or was it just symbolic?
Do you believe that Jesus turned water into wine or was it just symbolic?
So there is a precedent for Transubstantiation.
The Chuch teaches that Jesus turned bread into His flesh and wine into his blood because He said so.
And the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Why wouldn't you believe?
because it isn't true. it isn't biblical.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Of course it could be true.
Do you believe that Moses turned the water of the Nile into blood or was it just symbolic?
Do you believe that Jesus turned water into wine or was it just symbolic?
So there is a precedent for Transubstantiation.
The Chuch teaches that Jesus turned bread into His flesh and wine into his blood because He said so.
And the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Why wouldn't you believe?
Moses didn't God did. Jesus did it as a symbol. He was being symbolic. The whole meal was symbolic. Your institution wouldn't know the truth if it fell over it. If it knew the truth it would not lie, it lies.

You wouldn't believe it because it is a false interpretation.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
Of course it could be true.
Do you believe that Moses turned the water of the Nile into blood or was it just symbolic?
Do you believe that Jesus turned water into wine or was it just symbolic?
So there is a precedent for Transubstantiation.
The Chuch teaches that Jesus turned bread into His flesh and wine into his blood because He said so.
And the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Do you believe that Moses turned the water of the Nile into blood or was it just symbolic?
real
Do you believe that Jesus turned water into wine or was it just symbolic?
symbolic
Jesus leaves the Last Supper and states:
“I have said these things to you in figures of speech. " John 16:25
Why wouldn't you believe?
because it renders the Cross as meaningless
" and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."
Did this happen on the Cross or at the Last Supper?

If the blood of Christ was shed at the Last Supper
if the body of Christ was broken the Last Supper:
what was accomplished on the Cross?

I directly answered your questions: your turn.
Is Hebrews 9:15-17 a literal or figurative death?
15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, (diathéké) so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a will (diathéké) is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.17For a will (diathéké) takes effect ONLY at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive."


is 1 Corinthians 15:3 a literal or figurative death?
Christ died
for our sins, according to Scriptures

is Colossians 1:21-22 a literal or figurative death?
And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you
in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach—
 
Last edited:

1Thess521

Well-known member
For those who do not believe in transubstantiation, do you believe in consubstantiation, which also entails the real presence of Christ in communion bread?
Christ in omnipresent
"“God does not have size or spatial dimensions and is present at every point of space with his whole being, yet God acts differently in different places.” - Wayne Grudem
 

Johan

Well-known member
Of course it could be true.
Do you believe that Moses turned the water of the Nile into blood or was it just symbolic?
Do you believe that Jesus turned water into wine or was it just symbolic?
There is a critical difference between those miracles and the "miracle" of the Eucharist, however. When water turned into blood or wine, it obtained all the physical and chemical properties of blood or wine—those properties that define blood and wine, respectively. The "consecrated" Eucharistic elements retain all the physical and chemical properties of bread and wine, and for that reason, they remain bread and wine. The quasi-philosophical idea that we should somehow separate the "substance" of a thing from its properties is complete nonsense. We categorize things according to their properties.
 

Maxtar

Active member
Could Transubstantion be true?

In the long run, does it matter? For the Catholic Church it is merely an attempt to explain what happens during the consecration of the bread and the wine. Our Eastern Orthodox brothers do not attempt an explanation, they call it "a mystery". And as someone just posted here, the Lutherans call it "consubstantiation". Others explain it as just "a symbol" (which really means it is nothing). We are all free to believe what it is and how it comes about.
 

Maxtar

Active member
my beef is with a doctrine and its implications that contradict Scripture.
" and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."
Did this happen on the Cross or at the Last Supper?
What you continue to miss is this. It is as Jesus says, something that is to be done in memory of Him. Do what? To have His passion re-presented to all the future faithful Christians, a memorial that is totally unprecedented in human history, a memorial with the person being memorialized actually a part of said memorial.
 

JoeT

Member
Could Transubstantion be true?
Answer:
Sure, but scripture doesn't affirm the definition required as dogma.
In transubstantiation we have the conversion of the whole substances of bread and wine to the essence of Jesus Christ. Transubstantiation is the “Real Presence” of Jesus Christ. Transubstantiation is a term used to explain the transformation of bread and wine into the essence of Christ without a change of appearances; the bread and wine no longer exist in any substance. The term used by the Greek Fathers was meta-ousiosis, "change of being". Around the 10th century the Latin term came into its own, transubstantiatio, "change of substance".

There is biblical evidence of similar transformation in the change of substance in Matthew 17:2; Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:28–36 where the substance of Christ transfigured. In the case where Christ transfigured to speak to Moses and Elias the material substance of Jesus Christ crosses from one form to the form of light. The distinction is that the bread and wine not only transform in appearance the substance literally changes.

In The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 first recognized the term as the “Real Presence” then by Trent defining it as “wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and the whole substance of the wine into the blood."

Once consecrated in the Mass by a valid priest, the Eucharist is properly referred to as the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ.

JoeT
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
There is a critical difference between those miracles and the "miracle" of the Eucharist, however. When water turned into blood or wine, it obtained all the physical and chemical properties of blood or wine—those properties that define blood and wine, respectively. The "consecrated" Eucharistic elements retain all the physical and chemical properties of bread and wine, and for that reason, they remain bread and wine. The quasi-philosophical idea that we should somehow separate the "substance" of a thing from its properties is complete nonsense. We categorize things according to their properties.
If the Eucharist had the physical characteristics of Jesus' body, blood, soul and divinity:
1. No one would consume It.
2. There would be no faith involved.

John 6: 40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Do you see the Son? I do, everyday at Mass when I receive the Eucharist.
Do you believe that His flesh is true food and His blood true drink? I do, because He said so.
 

JoeT

Member
In the long run, does it matter? For the Catholic Church it is merely an attempt to explain what happens during the consecration of the bread and the wine. Our Eastern Orthodox brothers do not attempt an explanation, they call it "a mystery". And as someone just posted here, the Lutherans call it "consubstantiation". Others explain it as just "a symbol" (which really means it is nothing). We are all free to believe what it is and how it comes about.
Consubstantiation found in Lutheranism is a heresy. It contends that the bread and wine conjoin with Christ, an “Impanation.” As such Christ’s human and spiritual body are substantially united with the substances of bread and wine. It denies the hypostatic union of the Divine and man, as well as the “Real Presence”. It becomes a spirit possession, a piece of bread becomes alive. An embodied spirit inhabiting a material substance is a pagan concept where spirit inhabit objects having with magical powers to grant wishes or ward off calamities.

JoeT
 

Nic

Well-known member
Consubstantiation found in Lutheranism is a heresy. It contends that the bread and wine conjoin with Christ, an “Impanation.” As such Christ’s human and spiritual body are substantially united with the substances of bread and wine. It denies the hypostatic union of the Divine and man, as well as the “Real Presence”. It becomes a spirit possession, a piece of bread becomes alive. An embodied spirit inhabiting a material substance is a pagan concept where spirit inhabit objects having with magical powers to grant wishes or ward off calamities.

JoeT
Except confessional Lutherans call that hersey too.
 

balshan

Well-known member
In the long run, does it matter? For the Catholic Church it is merely an attempt to explain what happens during the consecration of the bread and the wine. Our Eastern Orthodox brothers do not attempt an explanation, they call it "a mystery". And as someone just posted here, the Lutherans call it "consubstantiation". Others explain it as just "a symbol" (which really means it is nothing). We are all free to believe what it is and how it comes about.
Consubstantiation is different to transubstantion. Not the same, similar but not the same. But happy to hear something who knows explain it.
 
Top