|
Post by DKTrav88 on Jun 26, 2018 0:16:43 GMT
Transubstantiation is, according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, the change of substance or essence by which the bread and wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass, become, in reality, the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that once an ordained priest blesses the bread of the Lord's Supper, it is transformed into the actual flesh of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of bread); and when he blesses the wine, it is transformed into the actual blood of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of wine).
Is this concept biblical? The scripture the Roman Catholic Church cites for this practice is John 6:53-57 KJV [53] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. [54] Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. [57] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. ...which, if interpreted literally, would lead to the “real presence” of Christ in the bread and wine. However, Jesus’s words in John 6:53-57 were spoken figuratively/symbolically. Jesus does this often throughout scripture, especially in His parables. Jesus made it exceedingly obvious what He meant, as in John 6:63 He says, John 6:63 KJV [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. Jesus specifically stated that His words are “spirit.” Jesus was using physical concepts, eating and drinking, to teach spiritual truth. Just as consuming physical food and drink sustains our physical bodies, so are our spiritual lives saved and built up by spiritually receiving Him, by grace through faith. Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully and completely receiving Him in our lives. The Scriptures declare that the Lord's Supper is a memorial to the body and blood of Christ in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 and not the actual consumption of His physical body and blood. Luke 22:19 KJV [19] 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. 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 KJV [24] 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. [25] 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. When Jesus was speaking in John chapter 6, He had not yet had the Last Supper with His disciples, in which He instituted the Lord’s Supper. To read the Lord’s Supper / Christian Communion back into John chapter 6 is unwarranted.
The most serious reason transubstantiation should be rejected is that it is viewed by the Roman Catholic Church as a "re-sacrifice" of Jesus Christ for our sins, or as a “re-offering / re-presentation” of His sacrifice. This is directly in contradiction to what Scripture says, that Jesus died "once for all" and does not need to be sacrificed again. Hebrews 10:10 KJV [10] By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all . 1 Peter 3:18 KJV [18] For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: Hebrews 7:27 KJV [27] Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Nov 3, 2020 6:52:09 GMT
The Cathar and johnbc a bleeding....host? What is that and what does it have to do with Jesus? Also, if one of you is saying that Jesus' real blood is present at the Lord's Supper then was Jesus cutting Himself when they had this Supper before He was put on the cross? Why would he cut Himself? That's not something He's supposed to do to Himself...he was supposed to be beaten and cut from the soldiers when being crucified. Unless I'm off on a tangent here and it's not what you two are talking about.
|
|
johnbc
Full Member
Roman Catholic
Posts: 110
Likes: 63
Religion: Catholic
Philosophy: Anarcho-capitalist, Anti-communism
|
Post by johnbc on Nov 3, 2020 17:07:44 GMT
The Cathar and johnbc a bleeding....host? What is that and what does it have to do with Jesus? Also, if one of you is saying that Jesus' real blood is present at the Lord's Supper then was Jesus cutting Himself when they had this Supper before He was put on the cross? Why would he cut Himself? That's not something He's supposed to do to Himself...he was supposed to be beaten and cut from the soldiers when being crucified. Unless I'm off on a tangent here and it's not what you two are talking about. Watch this:
|
|
The Cathar
New Member
Modern Cathar
Posts: 40
Likes: 13
Religion: Cathar
Philosophy: Stoic Asceticism
|
Post by The Cathar on Nov 4, 2020 22:22:58 GMT
Here's a couple of references: www.startribune.com/blood-red-host-is-no-miracle-lab-tests-show/135632408/www.christiantoday.com/article/wafer.bleeds.in.polish.church.genuine.miracle.or.hoax/84324.htmYou are aware of the term 'pious fraud', I assume? That a little sleight of hand or misdirection to 'wow the crowd' by this or that Priest isn't a bad thing if it increases one's faith? Now, I will disclose that I am not a big believer in 'miracles', especially those that involve the manipulation of worldly matter. In my Christianity- granted, a narrowly-focused brand of it- transubstantiation simply doesn't exist, and thus any 'miracles' associated with it are no more than 'unexplained events' at best and 'complete frauds' at worst. I don't believe God or Christ (while he was here) performs such parlor tricks for potentially gullible congregations- but I know who is more than happy to make people believe in all sorts of 'mysterious' goings-on, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who that liar and deceiver is.
|
|
johnbc
Full Member
Roman Catholic
Posts: 110
Likes: 63
Religion: Catholic
Philosophy: Anarcho-capitalist, Anti-communism
|
Post by johnbc on Nov 4, 2020 22:52:40 GMT
Here's a couple of references: www.startribune.com/blood-red-host-is-no-miracle-lab-tests-show/135632408/www.christiantoday.com/article/wafer.bleeds.in.polish.church.genuine.miracle.or.hoax/84324.htmYou are aware of the term 'pious fraud', I assume? That a little sleight of hand or misdirection to 'wow the crowd' by this or that Priest isn't a bad thing if it increases one's faith? Now, I will disclose that I am not a big believer in 'miracles', especially those that involve the manipulation of worldly matter. In my Christianity- granted, a narrowly-focused brand of it- transubstantiation simply doesn't exist, and thus any 'miracles' associated with it are no more than 'unexplained events' at best and 'complete frauds' at worst. I don't believe God or Christ (while he was here) performs such parlor tricks for potentially gullible congregations- but I know who is more than happy to make people believe in all sorts of 'mysterious' goings-on, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who that liar and deceiver is. I'm talking about the host in Buenos Aires and Poland that have already been scientifically proven to be miracles, a fact that is better than documented by atheists. And you show me an article from a Texas church, (an event that no one claims to be a miracle precisely because the Church investigates this sort of thing and distinguishes fraud from the truth), from a host that had been dissolving for weeks and not bleeding instantly. In a word: you said absolutely nothing. You have miserably tried to refute one thing with a completely different one, which has nothing to do with it. Heretics are going to use every kind of artifice to give credit to their lie, they are natural sophists and consciously commit these basic errors of dialectics to deceive the uninformed; this was a non sequitur error. If you can't talk honestly, is better not talk at all.
|
|
The Cathar
New Member
Modern Cathar
Posts: 40
Likes: 13
Religion: Cathar
Philosophy: Stoic Asceticism
|
Post by The Cathar on Nov 5, 2020 18:29:43 GMT
Let's take a look at an aspect of the Buenos Aires event, that being the 'participation' of a Dr. Robert Lawrence who claimed to have studied the samples given him and found 'human skin and white blood cells'. One would think that participation in a genuine 'miracle' would be something a leading pathologist would be proud of, wouldn't you? Yet when I look up Dr Lawrence, there is absolutely no mention of this whatsoever in his online presence, nor did he publish any sort of paper on the event and his findings. In checking up on the good doctor, one would never suspect he was a part of anything so important to the religious world. Why?
I find the same situation with a Professor John Walker of Australia, who allegedly confirmed the sample given him contained intact muscle cells and white blood cells. Yet nowhere did he publish anything on this, and his findings are not mentioned anywhere other than in a few articles on the event. One would think, again, that a man of his standing would be very proud to have been party to confirming a 'miracle', yet there's nothing from him on this- and he was a Catholic himself!
As for Professor Frederick Zugibe, we find the same pattern- his name is brought into the conversation with allegations of what he found, yet no published report, no nothing. According to one miracle-watcher, the event is not even mentioned in any of Zagribe's biographies. And this, from a man who was prominently featured in many televised programs on the Shroud and the Crucifixion and such. Why would such a wondrous discovery not be mentioned at all in the man's life story?
Now tell me why three leading members of the medical community (among many others) would be called upon to confirm a 'miracle', and having done so, they would say NOTHING about it?
And- most compelling of all- why is there no official confirmation reference from the Vatican? (Especially considering that a report from the aforementioned Dr Zagribe was allegedly sent to one Jorge Mario Bergoglio- the current Pope Francis!)
Fraud or not, we are still faced with determining whose tissue and blood that is. It it your contention that it is the actual heart and blood of Christ? (And if so, why would those not be the sort of Grade-A Holy Relics the Church would present to the world?) And if it's not the actual heart and blood of Christ, we now have a potential criminal case to investigate.
Where are the Buenos Aires samples currently stored? Are they available for further testing?
|
|