Fundamentalist transubstantiation?

[Tyler John]

I am slightly confused, which is nothing new!

If we are to take everything in the bible as literal and true, then don't the RC church have it right about the bread and wine becoming body and blood? After all, Jesus said 'This is my body.' He didn't say 'This represents my body.' Personally, I take the usual reformed position, which I see as biblically correct, that the bread and wine are symbolic. But, of course, I am prepared to interpret what I read in the bible. For those of you who scorn interpreting the scriptures in favour of accepting everything as being literal, how do you manage to deny transubstantiation?

I am also bemused by Psalm 139. Does our great creator God really 'knit' babies in the womb? Or am I supposed to take this as a useful description rather than a literal statement?

You see, my problem is simple. If I take everything literally then I have to ignore such examples, but if I don't take everything literally then the moderators change my status from believer to seeker. It's a bit like something out of George Orwell's 1984. Perhaps someone can help me to understand. Perhaps someone can even point to the bible passage in which Jesus said 'You must believe in the inneracy of the scriptures or you cannot be a believer and my follower.' I can't find it myself. But then, perhaps I don't know my bible well enough to have spotted it.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Tyler John

[Zemke]

Hi Tyler,

In John 6 we read the central theme is believing. v.29 "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

v35 "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst."

v40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone that beholds the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life, and I myself will raise them up on the last day."

v47 "Truly, truly, I say unto you, he who believes has eternal life.

If we isolate the eating the flesh and drinking the blood it becomes a problem. But we must keep these things in context, Not only the context of this section of scripture but also the book of John. We read from the start that Jesus is the Word manifest in the flesh "The word became flesh and dwelt among us."

Jesus also spoke spiritually much of the time. A quick example is when Nicodemus came to Jesus and Jesus told him you must be born again, well Jesus was speaking spiritually and yet Nicodemus was thinking physical. Happened all the time with the Lord. This is something of the same. Jesus is speaking spiritually and the people were thinking physical.

God told Jeremiah to eat a scroll, he told John in Revelation to eat a book and He also told Ezekiel to eat a scroll. Sweet in the mouth and bitter in the belly.

Eating the word of God is spiritual food. Jesus is the word manifest in the flesh. Eating is believing. Jesus is the anti type of the manna that fell in the wilderness.

Contextually this has nothing to do with the Last Super. It wasn't Jerusalem and it wasn't Passover.

[Botz]

I am slightly confused, which is nothing new!

If we are to take everything in the bible as literal and true, then don't the RC church have it right about the bread and wine becoming body and blood? After all, Jesus said 'This is my body.' He didn't say 'This represents my body.' Personally, I take the usual reformed position, which I see as biblically correct, that the bread and wine are symbolic. But, of course, I am prepared to interpret what I read in the bible. For those of you who scorn interpreting the scriptures in favour of accepting everything as being literal, how do you manage to deny transubstantiation?

Hi TJ,

You are starting off with an assumption here by stating we are to 'take everything in the Bible as literal and true'...then arguing from that position.

The Bible contains all sorts of writings, and this includes a diverse combination of specific communications

particularly in the form of prose, poetry, parables, prophecy, proverbs etc, and included in this are many figures of speech...then everything has to be

appraised from within a mostly Jewish historical frame-work.

Personally I have found when a passage is a little unclear, or has many opinions surrounding its essential meaning...it is often from a rather poor

translation of that particular passage, or is interpreted from a pre-conceived theology...rather than letting Scripture just speak for itself.

Concerning the issue of transubstantiation, just look at the passage back in John 6, which is partly where the Catholics derive their understanding

but you have to weigh up if you really think Jesus is talking about some un-Jewish canabalistic ritual and this is why many disciples left Him that

day...or if it is because they understood what He was saying and could not believe He was comparing Himself to the Manna that came down from

Heaven, and thus making Himself out to be more than He appeared.

Sometimes we have a tendency to make rituals and traditions out of the most peculiar method of translating passages of Scripture, and are content

to perpetuate our own inconsistencies even in the light of what is evident....this is often seen as 'being loyal' to the teaching of a denomination...but has

more to do with mans pride and poor choices IMO.

[Arthur Durnan]

The self-styled Romish doctrine of "transubstantiation" is supoosed to turn actual Hovis Bread into the actual, literal & present Body of the Lord Jesus Christ when a Roman cleric prays over it and "elevates the host". This practice places Jesus Christ back on the Cross millions of times yearly in R.C. circles in direct opposition to Hebrews 1); which states that Calvary occurred once for all time!

When Jesus said, "I am the Door," was He saying that He is an actual wooden door? Of course not. He was saying that He is the WAY to God's Heaven by faith. Stay away from Roman inventions at all costs!

[enoob57]

The fundamental aspect of the eating of The Lord is Spirit:

Jn 6:61-63

61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you?

62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

NKJV

Mt 4:4

4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'"

NKJV

Dt 8:3-4

3 So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, t

hat He

might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord.

NKJV

Jn 6:58

58 This is the bread which came down from heaven — not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever."

NKJV

When we take God's Word into us His Spirit transforms us into assurance of promise-> just like we walk on ground so water, though we never have,

I know that if He wanted me too and assigned it to my heart I would walk on water! The Living Bread within my being knows that The Father can

do anything-for all 'IS' possible by His Good Pleasure!

These people are trying to use the bread (actual) to incite the Bread (Spiritual)...

satan knows that if he can keep you relying on the dead things he still has access to your life... but if you can die to self

completely you can walk in the Spirit and not fulfill the desires of the flesh!

Ro 8:6-8

6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God;

for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

NKJV

Are they(transubstantiationist) not preaching flesh and fleshy doctrine?

Love, Steven

[Guest yod]

Perhaps someone can help me to understand. Perhaps someone can even point to the bible passage in which Jesus said 'You must believe in the inneracy of the scriptures or you cannot be a believer and my follower.' I can't find it myself. But then, perhaps I don't know my bible well enough to have spotted it.

Sure thing....

Proverbs 30:5

Every word of God is true, it is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.

Transubstantiation:

When Yeshua said "drink my blood" He gave them a glass of wine, not a glass of blood. This should be enough to know that He wasn't encouraging cannablism, and since that would have contradicted one of the most solemn and serious points of the Torah (Law) it would have also disqualified Him as a sinless sacrifice.

The ancient prohibition against eating blood was also one of the "laws" given to gentiles after His resurrection.

These are both good indicators that He wasn't speaking literally about ingesting blood.

[Arthur Durnan]

The brother has it right-on! If one easts someone's very flesh, that's called cannibalism which is strictly forbidden in Holy Writ! Nuff said.

[enoob57]

Perhaps someone can help me to understand. Perhaps someone can even point to the bible passage in which Jesus said 'You must believe in the inneracy of the scriptures or you cannot be a believer and my follower.' I can't find it myself. But then, perhaps I don't know my bible well enough to have spotted it.

Sure thing....

Proverbs 30:5

Every word of God is true, it is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.

both John 1 and 17 read in their entirety give us the foundation of the written Word-> To Christ The Living Word->by The Holy Spirit revealer of The Word (both)

thus becoming the objective foundation for any who open the precepts within to their heart and mind... Love, Steven

[Tyler John]

Thanks everyone. Some very interesting ideas. I take the very good point that inneracy and literalness are not exactly the same.

I think Arthur hits on exactly what I was saying when he points out that Jesus telling us he is the door cannot be taken literally. But who is to decide whether I take that statement as illustrative yet have to take others literally. I raised transubstantiation as an example (as I said, I think it's nonsense), but I can't get my head round why I am told I have to accept other people's decisions about which passages are literal and which illustrative. Why do some people seem to think that the Holy Spirit can reveal these decisions to them and not to me. For instance, I have been told that I must believe literally in a 144-hours creation, a global flood and people becoming pillars of salt. Why these events but not others. In fact, I've even been told that if I doubt the literalness of any of these then the whole bible would be untrustworthy. Believing that Jesus is not a wooden door doesn not make the bible untrustworthy. Surely we all have to judge, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which texts are literal or otherwise.

Thanks for the quotation from Proverbs demonstrating that 'Every word of God is true, it is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.' I agree with you, but it doesn't actually answer my point. Tghis quotation does not say that I cannot be a believer and follower of Jesus. Is there another quotation that addresses the issue accurately? I'm interested by Botz' suggestion about being influenced by assumptions. I wonder how much people's assumptions and preconceptions affect their decisions about which texts to take literally and which illustratively.

I really appreciate your thoughts as I struggle with the moderators' statement that I am not a believer.

[JohnD]

THIS is referring to the Passover Seder and specifically to the afikomen and the third cup of wine. He was saying "I am the fulfillment of these prophetic orders."

I am slightly confused, which is nothing new!

If we are to take everything in the bible as literal and true, then don't the RC church have it right about the bread and wine becoming body and blood? After all, Jesus said 'This is my body.' He didn't say 'This represents my body.' Personally, I take the usual reformed position, which I see as biblically correct, that the bread and wine are symbolic. But, of course, I am prepared to interpret what I read in the bible. For those of you who scorn interpreting the scriptures in favour of accepting everything as being literal, how do you manage to deny transubstantiation?

I am also bemused by Psalm 139. Does our great creator God really 'knit' babies in the womb? Or am I supposed to take this as a useful description rather than a literal statement?

You see, my problem is simple. If I take everything literally then I have to ignore such examples, but if I don't take everything literally then the moderators change my status from believer to seeker. It's a bit like something out of George Orwell's 1984. Perhaps someone can help me to understand. Perhaps someone can even point to the bible passage in which Jesus said 'You must believe in the inneracy of the scriptures or you cannot be a believer and my follower.' I can't find it myself. But then, perhaps I don't know my bible well enough to have spotted it.