Could Transubstantion be true?

mica

Well-known member
mica said:
He is no longer a victim. He wasn't a victim on the cross, He went willingly to die for the sins of mankind.
You are misunderstanding the word "victim", which does not preclude a willing victim.
no, the RCC has made up a new meaning for it.

that's how the RCC builds its false religion on its false teachings.

But His blood was shed, and without that bloody sacrifice, there would be no Eucharist. That too is Catholic teaching.
it wasn't yet shed at the last supper.

there is no blood in your wafer. that is made up by the RCC.
 

Maxtar

Active member
I'm one who does believe the truth of His word.
No. You believe but one interpretation of God's word. That's it! That's all you got!
let us know when you have something you can support with what His word actually does say.
You don't believe what His word actually says. You have twisted them to support the conclusions of those of like minded thinking that you are now aligned with. That's it! That's all you got!
 

mica

Well-known member
No. You believe but one interpretation of God's word. That's it! That's all you got!

You don't believe what His word actually says. You have twisted them to support the conclusions of those of like minded thinking that you are now aligned with. That's it! That's all you got!
I have the truth. I read and study His word, not that of the RCC men.

how many interpretations of His word do you have?

the words and interpretations taught to you by the RCC men - that's all you've got.

Why don't you try His word without the interpretations given by the RCC men? it makes a world and eternity of difference.
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
So what you are saying is that if the Eucharistic "body" actually were a body with skin, bones, muscles, sinews, blood vessels, organs, and so on, no one would consume it. And that is why you need this fanciful distinction between substance and accidents, which is nonsensical.

No, its practical. Jesus appears to us in a form that does not offend or frighten.

Or make-believe, which is another way of putting it. In contrast, the miracles of the Bible were always discernible. Christ was actually risen from the dead and was witnessed as such by many. No fanciful quasi-philosophical theories were needed to just imagine that He had risen.
Make-believe is eating crackers and grape juice, pretending that it is the body and blood of Christ.

Yes, I see Him as crucified for my sins and raised on the third day, rather than as a piece of bread and a cup of wine.
The verb in verse 40 is "see", not "see as".

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. (Gal. 3:1)
And Jesus is portrayed in Catholic churches as crucified, not as an empty cross in Protestant churches.

Yes, I believe that He carried my sins in His flesh onto the cross and took them away once and for all by the shedding of His blood. His sacrifice is my spiritual food.
So we agree on this.

I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. (John 6:35)
Yes he is the bread of life, the true bread of the presence and the true manna which were eaten, not thought about.
Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh... (Heb 10:19–20)
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
no, the RCC has made up a new meaning for it
You pick strange nonsense issues on which to take a stand, and I don't see what it gets you. The word "victim" is used in the standard dictionary sense (not some special Catholic sense):

"a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action."

By this definition, Jesus was a victim, because he was injured and killed as the result of the action of those who crucified him. He was a willing victim, to be sure. He knew exactly what going to happen to him. Your objection was based on the fact that he willed that it happen to him that way, but as you see, that objection is empty.


it wasn't yet shed at the last supper.
Of course. So?

there is no blood in your wafer.
Again, of course. So?
 

mica

Well-known member
Maxtar said:
No. You believe but one interpretation of God's word. That's it! That's all you got!

You don't believe what His word actually says.
How do you know I don't since you don't know what His word actually does say? All you know is what the RCC men teach you.

There are tremendous benefits of actually reading and studying His word instead of just believing that what others teach you it says.

You have twisted them to support the conclusions of those of like minded thinking that you are now aligned with.
no, I didn't start out with any 'like minded' teachers, certainly not those I have now - except for one. I usually get a good 30 min teaching from him once a wk or so. Tho i did go 4 yrs or so without them when he moved to start a new church in a different state. I've had him for over 40 yrs, but I've had many different ones over the decades and the past few yrs I have about 5 of them - 2 being Rabbis. I add some now and again (for a time). I also know to check what they teach with what scripture says - I learned that from most of them. A good teacher will teach you that. I spend time researching things and looking up the words as used in a verse, reading in context and checking in commentaries. I also check out the background of whoever wrote a commentary before I consider using it to research something.

That's it! That's all you got!
so I've got a lot! I have a heart changed by God Himself, Christ as Lord and Savior, the teaching and guidance of the Holy Spirit, I have His word to read and study and numerous very good bible teachers. Those teachers teach more than the RCC does and they don't say 'we say this, so this is what you must believe', they teach the background of it, the context, other where's and why's of it and connect it thru out scripture and timeline. They also teach not to just take their word for what it says, but that we should read and study His word for ourselves.

you have none of those things with the RCC men.
 

mica

Well-known member
You pick strange nonsense issues on which to take a stand, and I don't see what it gets you. The word "victim" is used in the standard dictionary sense (not some special Catholic sense):

"a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action."

By this definition, Jesus was a victim, because he was injured and killed as the result of the action of those who crucified him. He was a willing victim, to be sure. He knew exactly what going to happen to him. Your objection was based on the fact that he willed that it happen to him that way, but as you see, that objection is empty.
try looking it up as used in the verse. and in context.

Of course. So?
Again, of course. So?
no blood, not the same sacrifice.

the communion bread is a REMEMBRACE of His sacrifice. not a reenactment of it as catholics believe it to be.

those with Him at the last supper knew nothing of the coming sacrifice.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
try looking it up as used in the verse. and in context.
There are plenty of verses that say Jesus was injured and killed, and that makes him a victim, whether that word is used in Scripture or not. Your complaint was that he submitted willingly, but as you see, the definition of the word "victim" says nothing at all about whether one is a victim. Your insistence on using only the exact words in Scripture and not words that mean the same thing is nonsense, and I still don't know what it gets you.

the communion bread is a REMEMBRACE of His sacrifice. not a reenactment of it as catholics believe it to be.
It is both, and more.


those with Him at the last supper knew nothing of the coming sacrifice.
That's right. Indeed they did not fully understand the full significance of what had happened until much later.
 

Maxtar

Active member
There are plenty of verses that say Jesus was injured and killed, and that makes him a victim, whether that word is used in Scripture or not. Your complaint was that he submitted willingly, but as you see, the definition of the word "victim" says nothing at all about whether one is a victim. Your insistence on using only the exact words in Scripture and not words that mean the same thing is nonsense, and I still don't know what it gets you.


It is both, and more.



That's right. Indeed they did not fully understand the full significance of what had happened until much later.
Victim:

1. a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.

2. a living creature killed as a religious sacrifice.

You are correct, the Catholic Church and it's teaching is correct, the other person who posted on this issue is wrong.
 

mica

Well-known member
There are plenty of verses that say Jesus was injured and killed, and that makes him a victim, whether that word is used in Scripture or not. Your complaint was that he submitted willingly, but as you see, the definition of the word "victim" says nothing at all about whether one is a victim. Your insistence on using only the exact words in Scripture and not words that mean the same thing is nonsense, and I still don't know what it gets you.
you insist on believing the RCC instead of God's word. What does that get you except nonsense and confusion?

mica said:
the communion bread is a REMEMBRACE of His sacrifice. not a reenactment of it as catholics believe it to be.
It is both, and more
That's right. Indeed they did not fully understand the full significance of what had happened until much later.
it isn't both. it happened once for all time.

it is more, but catholics don't know what that is and they won't until they're born again.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
what the RCC teaches is contrary to what scripture teaches.
In addition to your not knowing what "victim" is, you don't seem to know what "contrary" means, as you declare something to be contrary when it isn't.
 

mica

Well-known member
In addition to your not knowing what "victim" is, you don't seem to know what "contrary" means, as you declare something to be contrary when it isn't.
online dictionary -
opposite in nature, direction, or meaning
perversely inclined to disagree or to do the opposite of what is expected or desired

mw dictionary -
a fact or condition incompatible with another
just the opposite

basically the teachings of the RCC are false, lies. God's word isn't false, it is His truth.

you are again wrong. what the RCC teaches is totally unbiblical.
 

Bonnie

Super 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 we do NOT call it "Consubstantiation". That is false. That is what Catholics call what they think we believe about the Lord's Supper. We believe that, when a Pastor blesses the Elements, Jesus' true body and blood come to be present in, with, under, and through the bread and wine--but the Elements also remain bread and wine. We call that the "Real Presence." We do NOT attempt to explain it, but realize it is a mystery, although one we joyfully accept.

And where do you get the idea we deny the "hypostatic union" of Jesus' being true God and true man? We most certainly DO affirm that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man!

Nothing you wrote here is true about what confessional Lutherans teach or believe. If you don't believe me, try writing this stuff on the Lutheran board, and see what happens.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Nic

Maxtar

Active member
basically the teachings of the RCC are false, lies. God's word isn't false, it is His truth.
Those whom you follow are full of lies. Over 30k denominations full of lies and you are a part and parcel of them.
you are again wrong. what the RCC teaches is totally unbiblical.
Nope. The scriptures run through and through all out teachings, and in our Holy Mass the scriptures come alive. Why don't you go and spew your garbage someplace else?
 

Nic

Well-known member
Except we do NOT call it "Consubstantiation". That is false. That is what Catholics call what they think we believe about the Lord's Supper. We believe that, when a Pastor blesses the Elements, Jesus' true body and blood come to be present in, with, under, and through the bread and wine--but the Elements also remain bread and wine. We call that the "Real Presence." We do NOT attempt to explain it, but realize it is a mystery, although one we joyfully accept.

And where do you get the idea we deny the "hypostatic union" of Jesus' being true God and true man? We most certainly DO affirm that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man!

Nothing you wrote here is true about what confessional Lutherans teach or believe. If you don't believe me, try writing this stuff on the Lutheran board, and see what happens.
I think it's the false term provided with an acceptable defining of the false term, which we too deny, then his argument follows if I read him right. That's what I make of it. It amounts to the same difference as a strawman argument but it appears it was unintentional.
 

Nondenom40

Super Member
Yet sometimes God is in pillar of fire or a pillar of smoke. Why couldn't God be in a piece of bread?


Unless that bread or wine is in fact God, in which case it would not be a deception.



Only because Christ's sacrifice on the cross is propitiatory, and the Eucharist and that sacrifice are one in the same sacrifice.
A. The pillar of fire and smoke were actually pillars of fire or smoke. They weren't under the appearance of something invisible to the eye.
B. Nowhere is bread called God. Nowhere does anyone worship bread as God.
C. Which came first the last supper or the cross? If the supper was propitiatory then the cross wasn't. And vice versa. And no, your eucharist is not the same sacrifice as as Jesus on the cross.
 

Nondenom40

Super Member
Yes:

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."
This is rc double speak. It says its 'one single sacrifice' then goes on to describe two completely different sacrifices! Only the self deceived read this nonsense and believe it.
 
Top