Could Transubstantion be true?

Maxtar

Active member
You can't even be bothered to address what I posted.
What you posted has no validity in the Christian world. It is YOUR opinion because of YOUR bad interpretation of the scriptures. The preponderance of evidence sides with orthodox teaching, not with the teachings of men who started their own sects some 1500 years down the line.
 

Nic

Well-known member
Of course! They never sin or run afoul of Jesus's commands either. Yeah right. We know that isn't true as we see violations of God's words here daily.
Well the commandment in question is violated if one demeans ones good name (reputation).
 

Nic

Well-known member
What you posted has no validity in the Christian world. It is YOUR opinion because of YOUR bad interpretation of the scriptures. The preponderance of evidence sides with orthodox teaching, not with the teachings of men who started their own sects some 1500 years down the line.
I enjoy his intellectualism and considerate attitude that he post with. He and I agreed elsewhere. I haven't poured through his post but picked up on his symbolic meaning and I wish to look more closely at that.
 

JoeT

Well-known member
I think there may be an example that does affirm the definition: e.g. John 16:20, "Your sorrow shall be turned into joy." This was a real transubstantiation.

The doctrine hinges upon "This is my body" (touto esti to soma mou). This is no more literal than to say "The good seed are the children of the kingdom." or The field is the world". He is speaking figuratively.

He is using the figure Metaphor; or Representation. Which is a declaration that one thing is (or represents) another; or, Comparison by Representation. From the Greek-metaphora, a transference, or carrying over or across. From (meta), beyond or over, and (Pherein), to carry. The Metaphor declares that one thing IS the other.

The Metaphor is not so true to fact as the Simile, but is much truer to feeling. The two nouns themselves must both be mentioned, and are always to be taken in their absolutely literal sense, or else no one can tell what they mean. The figure lies wholly in the verb, and not in either of the two nouns: and it is a remarkable fact that, when a pronoun is used instead of one of the nouns (as it is here), and the two nouns are of different genders, the pronoun is always made to agree in gender with that noun to which the meaning is carried across, and not with the noun from which it is carried, and to which it properly belongs. This at once shows us that a figure is being employed; when a pronoun, which ought, according to the laws of language, to agree in gender with its own noun, is changed, and made to agree with the noun which, by Metaphor, represents it.

In our example, the pronoun, "this" (touto), is neuter, and is thus made to agree with "body" (swma), which is neuter, and not with bread (aptos, artos), which is masculine. This is always the case in Metaphors. Here are a few other examples to illustrate.
In Zech. 5:8, "This is wickedness." Here, "this" (fem.) does not agree with "ephah" (to which it refers), which is neuter, but with "wickedness, " which is feminine.
In Zech. 5:3, "This is the curse." "This" (fem.) agrees with "curse", which is feminine, and not with "flying roll", which is neuter, (to which it refers).
In Matt.13:38, "The good seed are the children of the kingdom." Here, "these" (masc.) agrees with "children of the kingdom" (masc.), and not with seed, which is neuter.
What this is showing is that in a Metaphor, the two nouns (or pronoun and noun) are always literal, and that the figure lies only in the verb.

"This is (i.e., represents) my body," is an undoubted Metaphor. "He took the cup...saying...this is my blood." Here we have a pair of metaphors. In the former one, "this" refers to "bread", and it is claimed that "is" means changed into the "body" of Christ. In the latter, "this" refers to "the cup", but it is not claimed that the cup is changed into "blood". The difference of treatment which the same figure meets with in these two verses is proof that the former is wrong.
In 1Cor. 11:25 we read "this cup is the new covenant." How does this "cup" become transubstantiated into a "covenant"?

Additionally, the verb, (eimi), I am, or the infinitive of it, to be, means to be in the sense of signifying, amounting to. e.g. Mt.9:13, 'But go ye and learn what that means"
Mt.12:7, "But if ye had known what this means".
Acts. 10:7, "Now, while Peter doubted in himself what this vision should mean"
On the other hand, if an actual change is meant, then there must be a verb which plainly and actually says so; for the verb "to be" never has or conveys any idea of such a change.

The usual verb to express such a change is (ginomai), which means to be or become. Mk.9:39, 'There was(i.e. became) a great calm,"
Lk.4:3, "Command this stone that it be made (i.e. changed into) bread."
If Jesus had meant that the bread had become His body, that is the verb He would have necessarily used. The fact that He did not use it, but instead used the simple verb (eimi), i.e., "is" proves conclusively that no change was meant, and that only representation was intended.
From all this it is clear that the words, "This is my body" means "This (bread) represents my body."
In the metaphor of the cockle we read where Christ explains the simile; the figures are identified. This doesn't occur in any of the four gospels at the Seder meal. Furthermore, the epistles by the various different Apostles indicate that they understood "touto esti to soma mou" to refer to Jesus Christ being the whole essence of the Eucharist; St. Paul more so than the others.

If "touto esti to soma mou" was intended to be a symbol then we would expect "Touto esti mou haima" to have symbolic language, however none exists for either. It becomes an enigma of the Protestant paradigm which can't be explained away. It's quite clear that the New Covenant is signed in the blood of the Victim (sacrificial Lamb) as was the Jewish custom. In both cases we don't see but one essence at a time, bread, whose state becomes another essence Jesus Christ. It is a transubstantiation that is not reversed, nor is predicated on the state worthiness of those partaking. The bread is no longer bread, but Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity whole and complete.

You don't know what Jesus Christ would have done, or not done. All we know from Scripture is what He did do. He did use the verb "esti" (is) indicating a state of being, "to be". The Clintonian argument might have served one staying out of jail a few years back, but it doesn't work here. The meaning of Christ's words were clear when they were said in the upper room, this is my Body, and this is my Blood, they were faithfully taught in the traditions of the Church from that day forward.

JoeT
 

mica

Well-known member
In the metaphor of the cockle we read where Christ explains the simile; the figures are identified. This doesn't occur in any of the four gospels at the Seder meal. Furthermore, the epistles by the various different Apostles indicate that they understood "touto esti to soma mou" to refer to Jesus Christ being the whole essence of the Eucharist; St. Paul more so than the others.

If "touto esti to soma mou" was intended to be a symbol then we would expect "Touto esti mou haima" to have symbolic language, however none exists for either. It becomes an enigma of the Protestant paradigm which can't be explained away. It's quite clear that the New Covenant is signed in the blood of the Victim (sacrificial Lamb) as was the Jewish custom. In both cases we don't see but one essence at a time, bread, whose state becomes another essence Jesus Christ. It is a transubstantiation that is not reversed, nor is predicated on the state worthiness of those partaking. The bread is no longer bread, but Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity whole and complete.

You don't know what Jesus Christ would have done, or not done. All we know from Scripture is what He did do. He did use the verb "esti" (is) indicating a state of being, "to be". The Clintonian argument might have served one staying out of jail a few years back, but it doesn't work here. The meaning of Christ's words were clear when they were said in the upper room, this is my Body, and this is my Blood, they were faithfully taught in the traditions of the Church from that day forward.

JoeT
the RCC did not exist at that time. you cannot find its catholic teachings in the pages of His word.
 

RayneBeau

Well-known member
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
So, do Roman Catholics actually believe then that the so-called Roman Catholic man-made repetitive ritual of "transubstantiation" can rightly be compared to the biblical account of the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ when He appeared in glory on the mount with Moses, who talked with Jesus of the great sacrifice soon to be offered at Jerusalem?
 

balshan

Well-known member
What I find amusing is that the institution that has a work based salvation feels the need to justify living in sin. I mean in the past one had confessions going on during mass, so that people would be cleansed before communion. I do not know if they still do this.

No is perfect, but one is not to continue to sin. I mean an alcoholic should avoid places of temptation. Jesus is changing us. The excuse we are all sinners does not give us the excuse to continue to wallow in sin. I mean sounds like a OSAS theology to me. RCs have told us it is a false doctrine yet they justify the evil in their institution by saying we are all sinners.

I just want them to show me one scripture were it says if you are for example a sexual sinner and you become saved keep committing sexual sin. Just one.

John 8:11

She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

J
ohn 5:14

Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, “See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you.”

1 John 3:4

Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.

2 cor 5:17

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come


God does not lie, Jesus does not lie.

One should avoid temptation for example an alcoholic should avoid places of drink. This does not make a person perfect, it makes one not deliberately go out and sin. If you are not changed, then really are you changed. No one is perfect but one should not wallow in sin.

Just to reiterate what I have constantly said:

THERE HAS BEEN ONLY ONE PERFECT PERSON AND HE IS JESUS. JESUS ALONE IS THE ONLY PERFECT PERSON.
 
Last edited:

JoeT

Well-known member
AMEN! His word is the true bread, of which we are to eat.
If we eat Jesus Christ in the Person, then you eat flesh. The Word (Logos) was made flesh [John 1:14]. His Person ascended to heaven, body and soul.

Consequently, if you eat word symbolically you merely gnaw on a few words.

JoeT
 

JoeT

Well-known member
the RCC did not exist at that time. you cannot find its catholic teachings in the pages of His word.
There is St. Peter and the other Apostles, St. Luke, and St. Paul. All were of "The Way", which is the Catholic Church.

JoeT
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
What you posted has no validity in the Christian world.
False.
It is YOUR opinion
No, it isn't. I even supplied you with proof positive evidence. I'm flattered that you believe I could come up with something that complicated all by my lonesome, but the fact remains that scholars and theologians alike agree that these figures do in fact exist just as I have presented them to you for your edification.
because of YOUR bad interpretation of the scriptures.
Again patently false. My interpretation FOLLOWS from the fact that the authors are using these figures of speech, not the other way around.
The preponderance of evidence sides with orthodox teaching,
Please provide this evidence then.
not with the teachings of men who started their own sects some 1500 years down the line.
Fallacy of Begging the Question. I was referring to the biblical authors themselves.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
In the metaphor of the cockle
Please provide some context, and a reference to this "cockle" metaphor.
we read where Christ explains the simile; the figures are identified.
Again, please provide some documentation for what you're referring to here.
This doesn't occur in any of the four gospels at the Seder meal. Furthermore, the epistles by the various different Apostles indicate that they understood "touto esti to soma mou" to refer to Jesus Christ being the whole essence of the Eucharist; St. Paul more so than the others.
Please document where you're getting this from.
If "touto esti to soma mou" was intended to be a symbol
Strawman argument. I'm not suggesting that he's using the figure Symbol.
then we would expect "Touto esti mou haima" to have symbolic language, however none exists for either. It becomes an enigma of the Protestant paradigm which can't be explained away.
And yet, I've presented not just an explanation, but proof as well.
It's quite clear that the New Covenant is signed in the blood of the Victim (sacrificial Lamb) as was the Jewish custom. In both cases we don't see but one essence at a time, bread, whose state becomes another essence Jesus Christ. It is a transubstantiation that is not reversed, nor is predicated on the state worthiness of those partaking. The bread is no longer bread, but Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity whole and complete.
Whatever. None of that proves anything one way or another. More importantly, it doesn't begin to address what I posted, much less refute it.
You don't know what Jesus Christ would have done, or not done.
What in the name of Tartarus are you talking about now?
All we know from Scripture is what He did do.
All we know from scripture is what the author's wrote.
He did use the verb "esti" (is) indicating a state of being, "to be"
Again, please refer to what I actually posted and be so kind to address why it isn't factually correct.
. The Clintonian argument
What is the Clintonian argument, and how is this relevant?
The meaning of Christ's words were clear
This isn't an argument. It's a baseless claim.
 

JoeT

Well-known member
Please provide some context, and a reference to this "cockle" metaphor.
In chapter 13 Christ tells the parable of the cockle, I believe you call them tares.
Again, please provide some documentation for what you're referring to here.
Read the parable, Christ explains the metaphors and similes.
Please document where you're getting this from.
Did Christ explain the meaning of the symbols and metaphors? Did He say, "this is my body, sorta"? How can it be a symbol or metaphor when the explanation was given earlier, "For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. " [John 6:56] Where is the metaphor here?
And yet, I've presented not just an explanation, but proof as well.
You asserted an explaintion which wasn't factual.
What is the Clintonian argument, and how is this relevant?
The former president Clinton's response to did question whether or not it is true, "there's nothing going on between us", Clinton responds "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing."

This isn't an argument. It's a baseless claim.
So, continuing with your Clintonian argument, you contend that "the meaning of Christ's words were clear" is baseless? What do you base the meaning of Christ's words?

JoeT
 

Johan

Well-known member
Did Christ explain the meaning of the symbols and metaphors? Did He say, "this is my body, sorta"?
Jesus did not explain what the metaphor "born again" (John 3) means. Neither to Nicodemus nor to His disciples. Yet, it is clearly a figure of speech. As Nicodemus rightly pointed out, we are not supposed to reenter our mother's womb. But he was still scolded by Jesus because he was apparently supposed to know what this metaphor denoted. In fact, it is not explained anywhere in the Scriptures. It is assumed by many that it refers to some kind of change of nature, but, as said, an explicit explanation is nowhere given.
How can it be a symbol or metaphor when the explanation was given earlier, "For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. " [John 6:56] Where is the metaphor here?
I do not want to get into the gruesome details of cannibalism, but human flesh is apparently edible. If all Jesus wanted to say was that His flesh could serve as food, He would have stated the obvious. And cannibalism was practiced in Israel as a last resort to obtain food when they were under siege. But enough with that unpleasant topic. Your exegetical problem is that you are (as so often) reading this verse out of context.

Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever. (John 6:53–58)​

The Israelites ate manna in the desert. It demonstrated the grace and power of God to nourish them and keep them alive under forbidding circumstances. It was indeed real food. But those who ate it eventually died. With regard to Christ, those who come to Him and live by Him will have eternal life. He sacrificed His body and shed His blood so that those who believe in Him will be saved and live forever. Precisely for that reason are His flesh real food and His blood real drink.
 

Hark

Well-known member
Did Christ explain the meaning of the symbols and metaphors? Did He say, "this is my body, sorta"? How can it be a symbol or metaphor when the explanation was given earlier, "For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. " [John 6:56] Where is the metaphor here?
Jesus told the Jews HOW to receive that bread of life that comes down from Heaven to give life to the world by coming to & believing in Him whereby they will never hunger nor thirst any more for they are forever filled and thus saved for coming to & believing in Him.

John 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

The Jews could not see Him as the Savior to believe in Him as their minds were stuck on eating that bread of life like manna from heaven. So the verse you are quoting is done in sarcasm, because they would not believe in Him. So John 6th chaper was never about communion, but how we are saved.

Listen to how He speaks plainly to His disciples.

John 6:
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

So believing in Him after His ascension is how anyone gets saved. The eating thereof does not profit anyone; the flesh profit nothing.

John 6: 7 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

So even when Jesus told them how to receive that bread of life by believing in Him to have everlasting life, and gave the example of how their fathers ate manna in the wilderness and are dead to signify that there is no literal eating of this bread of life for eternal life but just by believing in Him.

So which would you prefer to listen to? what Jesus said in sarcasm to the Jews for not believing how to receive the bread of life by believing in Him or listen to His words when He spoke plainly to His disciples that by believing His words in believing in Him is how you receive the bread of life to have everlasting life after His ascension??
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
Jesus told the Jews HOW to receive that bread of life that comes down from Heaven to give life to the world by coming to & believing in Him whereby they will never hunger nor thirst any more for they are forever filled and thus saved for coming to & believing in Him.

John 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

The Jews could not see Him as the Savior to believe in Him as their minds were stuck on eating that bread of life like manna from heaven. So the verse you are quoting is done in sarcasm, because they would not believe in Him. So John 6th chaper was never about communion, but how we are saved.

Listen to how He speaks plainly to His disciples.

John 6:
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

So believing in Him after His ascension is how anyone gets saved. The eating thereof does not profit anyone; the flesh profit nothing.

John 6: 7 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

So even when Jesus told them how to receive that bread of life by believing in Him to have everlasting life, and gave the example of how their fathers ate manna in the wilderness and are dead to signify that there is no literal eating of this bread of life for eternal life but just by believing in Him.

So which would you prefer to listen to? what Jesus said in sarcasm to the Jews for not believing how to receive the bread of life by believing in Him or listen to His words when He spoke plainly to His disciples that by believing His words in believing in Him is how you receive the bread of life to have everlasting life after His ascension??
You believe that Jesus was speaking sarcastically in John 6?
How about, instead, Jesus spoke to His disciples in truth and love, not wanting to lose anyone, offering to mankind a prodigy greater than manna to preserve our souls to eternal life?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
In chapter 13 Christ tells the parable of the cockle, I believe you call them tares.

Read the parable, Christ explains the metaphors and similes.
Sorry, but you're not using these terms accurately at all. The figure Parable is not the figure Metaphor or Simile. They're can't be used interchangeably with any accuracy. Just as a square is not the same as a triangle or a circle, they're distinctly different figures of speech
Did Christ explain the meaning of the symbols and metaphors? Did He say, "this is my body, sorta"? How can it be a symbol or metaphor when the explanation was given earlier, "For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. " [John 6:56] Where is the metaphor here?
You're going to have to do better than ignoring my argument. Until you address and refute what I posted, you're not advancing the discussion at all.
You asserted an explaintion which wasn't factual.
It most certainly is factual. You're baseless claims are becoming tiresome. Prove it isn't factual or concede the fact.
The former president Clinton's response to did question whether or not it is true, "there's nothing going on between us", Clinton responds "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing."
Are you going to make a point or not? This doesn't tell me anything. I provided plenty of proof for my position. You've done nothing but deflect with irrelevant nonsense.
So, continuing with your Clintonian argument, you contend that "the meaning of Christ's words were clear" is baseless?
I haven't forgotten my position. Your use of logical fallacies is becoming mind numbingly pointless.
What do you base the meaning of Christ's words?
Read what I actually posted. I'm not going to repeat myself when you can't be bothered to read them the first time.
 
Top