The Case Against Transubstantiation

[zerinus]

Here is the post:

http://zerinus.blogspot.com/2008/04/...antiation.html

Have a read through it and tell me what you think

zerinus

[teadough]

Originally Posted by zerinus

tell me what you think

zerinus

So you believe that Jesus walked on water,raised a dead man,turned water to wine, and arose from the dead Himself,yet when it comes to Him having bread turn to His body you think this is just plain crazy?

I find it harder to believe that a man was raised from the dead but I have no problems accepting it. I think you may have problems believing in the examples I gave you,so i don't see how you could accept His body being present at Holy Communion

[zerinus]

Originally Posted by teadough

So you believe that Jesus walked on water,raised a dead man,turned water to wine, and arose from the dead Himself,yet when it comes to Him having bread turn to His body you think this is just plain crazy?

I find it harder to believe that a man was raised from the dead but I have no problems accepting it. I think you may have problems believing in the examples I gave you,so i don't see how you could accept His body being present at Holy Communion

It is not a question of whether He could do such a thing or not; but of whether it is true Christian doctrine that He would or should or not.

Raising the dead or walking on the water served a purpose at that time. Turning bread into flesh and wine into blood serves no useful purpose to anyone, and is not a Christian or biblical doctrine that He should.

Raising someone from the dead or walking on water were manifest miracles that could be observed as such. But we know that the bread is not turned into flesh, nor wine into blood, because we can eat and drink them and taste them, and take them to the laboratory and test them. It is a fake miracle if it is one.

zerinus

[teadough]

Originally Posted by zerinus

It is not a question of whether He could do such a thing or not; but of whether it is true Christian doctrine that He would or should or not.

Raising the dead or walking on the water served a purpose at that time. Turning bread into flesh and wine into blood serves no useful purpose to anyone, and is not a Christian or biblical doctrine that He should.

Raising someone from the dead or walking on water were manifest miracles that could be observed as such. But we know that the bread is not turned into flesh, nor wine into blood, because we can eat and drink them and taste them, and take them to the laboratory and test them. It is a fake miracle if it is one.

zerinus

So you see no similarity between Him and a Paschal Lamb? Was that just a coincidence for the sake of dramatic purpose for the story?

I would say it served a great purpose,hence the New Covenant.

It still comes down to your Faith on any of the issues that I first placed no matter how you look at it or what purpose you seem to think it served. You can believe it or you can walk away like the others did in John 6. The choice is yours.

I will keep you in my prayers. God Bless

[PatrickJT914]

Hi Teadough,

Do you know much about the Eucharistic miracles? The ones that have turned into human flesh or some other form of human element. I don't know much about the subject. If you or someone else know more, you guys could direct Zerinus to the proper information. I know of a book by Bob & Penny Lord, although the title escapes me at the moment. Are there any good videos or dvd's that show these miracles?

Thanks

[Tonks40]

You're forgetting something that the 1st century Jews would understand at the time Christ spoke those words in John 6. They saw this in the context of the foretelling of the Messiah as outlined in the Old Testament.

When Christ said that he was to be "eaten" this goes back to Jewish sacrificial practices outlined in Exodus, with Christ being the "sacrifice," the paschal lamb. Read Exodus and Leviticus again to see the correlation before you come to your conclusion.

[zerinus]

Originally Posted by teadough

So you see no similarity between Him and a Paschal Lamb? Was that just a coincidence for the sake of dramatic purpose for the story?

I would say it served a great purpose,hence the New Covenant.

It still comes down to your Faith on any of the issues that I first placed no matter how you look at it or what purpose you seem to think it served. You can believe it or you can walk away like the others did in John 6. The choice is yours.

I will keep you in my prayers. God Bless

I am neither questioning the Atonement, nor Christ’s sacrifice, nor the symbolism of the Paschal Lamb, nor of the Passover, nor the fulfilling of it by Jesus Christ, nor the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper as a memorial of it. I am questioning the Transubstantiation, which is a completely different issue, unbiblical, and totally irrelevant to any of those things. Perhaps you hadn't read my Blog article carefully enough. Maybe it would be a good idea to go and read it again before commenting.

zerinus

[O.S. Luke]

I would argue against transubstantiation being used to describe what happens at the Table to the bread and win at the Eucharist - it is an Aristotelian philosophical construct that is at odds with the mysterious nature of a sacrament.

However, after reading your article, I highly disagree with your premise. The bread and wine DO become the Body and Blood of Christ. Christ is really present - make no mistake about it.

O+

[zerinus]

Originally Posted by Tonks40

You're forgetting something that the 1st century Jews would understand at the time Christ spoke those words in John 6. They saw this in the context of the foretelling of the Messiah as outlined in the Old Testament.

When Christ said that he was to be "eaten" this goes back to Jewish sacrificial practices outlined in Exodus, with Christ being the "sacrifice," the paschal lamb. Read Exodus and Leviticus again to see the correlation before you come to your conclusion.

That may indicate a valid symbolism, I agree. But that did not mean that Jesus’ words were meant to be taken literally.

zerinus

[JCismywingman]

Pls see here
about the euchrist turning to flesh.

"Blessed are those who have not seen yet believed"

[zerinus]

Originally Posted by O.S. Luke

I would argue against transubstantiation being used to describe what happens at the Table to the bread and win at the Eucharist - it is an Aristotelian philosophical construct that is at odds with the mysterious nature of a sacrament.

However, after reading your article, I highly disagree with your premise. The bread and wine DO become the Body and Blood of Christ. Christ is really present - make no mistake about it.

O+

Your second paragraph seems to contradict your first paragraph. Oh well!

Besides, making categorical assertions doesn't really mean anything unless you can back it up with sound arguments.

zerinus

[Tonks40]

Originally Posted by zerinus

That may indicate a valid symbolism, I agree. But that did not mean that Jesus’ words were meant to be taken literally.

zerinus

If that were the case, then would it stand to reason then that what Christ said about eating His flesh and drinking His blood really does nothing, and does not give eternal life to the partaker?

Like I said, the Jews at the time understood the sacrificial practices of the time of Moses. The high priests would eat of the sacrificial lamb in order to atone for the sins of the people. They believed that this practice actually DID something.

[teadough]

Originally Posted by zerinus

I am neither questioning the Atonement, nor Christ’s sacrifice, nor the symbolism of the Paschal Lamb, nor of the Passover, nor the fulfilling of it by Jesus Christ, nor the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper as a memorial of it. I am questioning the Transubstantiation, which is a completely different issue, unbiblical, and totally irrelevant to any of those things. Perhaps you hadn't read my Blog article carefully enough. Maybe it would be a good idea to go and read it again before commenting.

zerinus

Actually, you are questioning the Atonement,Christ's Sacrifice,Paschal Lamb,and Passover or anything else you want to throw into the mix. I have read your Blog and have not seen anything else that I would not have read or said myself when I was a Protestant(I know,I know..you're not Protestant).

I guess what I am getting at is this: You have made up your mind no matter what anyone will tell you. I know how you feel,so don't feel as though I am one of those Catholics that will get in a hissy. I will Love you and Pray for you no matter what choice you decide. All of Gods children deserve to be lifted up in prayer. And my prayer for you is that you will one day allow your heart to open up to the gentle persuasion of the Holy Spirit. May He guide you to the fullness of Truth so that your eyes will one day be opened.

Luke 24:30-31
And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them.
31
With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him

[zerinus]

Originally Posted by JCismywingman

Pls see here
about the euchrist turning to flesh.

"Blessed are those who have not seen yet believed"

This sounds bogus to me! This kind of thing can easily be staged. My objections to Transubstantiation are biblical, scriptural, and theological; it is not a question of “believing” or “not believing” something. The scriptures argue against it, period.

If it is a genuine miracle, and the symbols literally turned into flesh and blood, they should do so in an observable manner every time, not just when somebody allegedly “prayed” for it in 700.

zerinus

[maryj]

Originally Posted by Tonks40

You're forgetting something that the 1st century Jews would understand at the time Christ spoke those words in John 6. They saw this in the context of the foretelling of the Messiah as outlined in the Old Testament.

When Christ said that he was to be "eaten" this goes back to Jewish sacrificial practices outlined in Exodus, with Christ being the "sacrifice," the paschal lamb. Read Exodus and Leviticus again to see the correlation before you come to your conclusion.

Originally Posted by zerinus

That may indicate a valid symbolism, I agree. But that did not mean that Jesus’ words were meant to be taken literally.

zerinus

symbolism? Oh really? So the Lord said to Moses andAaron in the land of Egypt," Tell the whole community of Israel" on the tenth of this month everyone of your families must procure for itself a lamb, one apiece for each household. If your household is too small, join with the nearest household, share the lamb. It must be a year old with no blemish, then with the assembly of Israel present, it shall be slaughtered during the evening twilight. Take the blood and apply it to the doorpost and lintel of every house that partakes of the lamb. That same night they shall EAT it's flesh.
Not a symbol of it's flesh, not some fish, not a cake made into the shape of a lamb, THE LAMB.
"For on the same night I will go through Egypt, striking down the first born of the land. But the blood will mark the houses where you are. Seeing the blood, I will pass over you.

No symbolism there, you either did what the Lord said or you woke up dead.

But Jesus' words to "EAT" are to be taken as symbolic. The Paschal Lamb was "slaughtered" during the evening twilight. So let's see, shall we take the words of our Lord that his Body and Blood are just a symbol? Hmmmm, seems we'll wake up dead. Wanna talk about that "symbolic" Manna that the Lord sent to sustain the Israelites on their journey to the promised land(read heaven there)??