ERROR OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION (1215 AD). Definition: The whole substance of the bread and wine is converted into the actual and real entire body and blood of Christ. Answer: Radbertus first invented this doctrine in the 9th century. Catholics support this by a literal view of Matthew 26:26-29. "Take eat; this is my body. For this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Consider these reasons why the bread and wine were symbols of Christ’s body and blood, to be partaken in for remembrance purposes only, and that there was no material conversion of the bread to the body, nor of the wine to the blood of Christ. 1. Jesus, after saying "this is my blood" in Matthew 26:28 also said "I will not drink henceforth of this FRUIT OF THIS VINE" in Matthew 26:29, showing that the grapejuice was STILL WINE and had not been changed to blood. 2. Jesus often referred to Himself in symbols. So why see Him as literal in a symbolic context? John 10:7 "I am the door." Did Jesus mean he was literally wooden? No. John 14:6 "I am the way." Did Jesus mean he was literally a road? No. John 15:5 "I am the vine." Did Jesus mean he was literally a tree? No. John 8:12 "I am the light." Did Jesus mean he was literally a torch or a sun? No. John 6:48 "I am the bread of life." Did Jesus mean he was literally a loaf of dough? No. John 6:63 states clearly that Jesus was speaking spiritually, not literally: "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life." Luke 22:19 states clearly that the Lord's supper is for remembrance purposes: "This do in remembrance of me." This is a metaphor, where one thing is said to be another thing because of it’s similarity. A metaphor is a figurative use of terms without indicating their figurative nature, for example, “he shall eat his words”. 3. The bread and wine did not become Christ's body and blood because: a) Christ was still present with them. Christ would have had 2 bodies, one which died on the cross and one which did not. b) To drink blood was forbidden in Acts 15:20,29 "We write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from BLOOD." In Deuteronomy 12:16 "Only ye shall not eat the blood." 4. The tense of the Greek verbs "EAT" in John 6:50,51,52,53,54,56,57,58 is in the AORIST tense showing a ONCE-FOR-ALL, point action, that is NOT CONTINUAL. The Biblical Lord's supper is to be a repeated event, and therefore has no saving merit. Roman Catholics are commanded to believe in transubstantiation because it was stated at the Council of Trent (11 October 1551) that this doctrine was essential for salvation. They pronounced curses on anyone who would deny it. Paul the Apostle, in contrast, pronounced a double curse on anyone who preached a gospel different from the all sufficiency of Christ's death, burial and resurrection to save us from our sins. Galatians 1:6-9 puts a double curse on this "other gospel" of transubstantiation for salvation. 5. Before Christ ascended to heaven, He promised to come to us during the Church Age, NOT in the sacrifice of the MASS, but by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-18 as Comforter): "He shall give you another Comforter ... even the Spirit of truth ... I will not leave you comfortless: I WILL COME TO YOU.” Note: Christ will return to earth a second time visibly in glory. This is what is meant by 1 Corinthians 11:26 "For as oftenas ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death TILL HE COME." Note: This means that Christ does not come literally and visibly as the wafer in the mass, but to the air as in 1 Thessalonians 4:16,17. 6. At the Council of Constance in 1415 it was agreed to withold the cup from the congregation lest the wine be spilt. However this contradicts 1 Corinthians 11:25-29 where ALL Corinthian believers drank of the wine: "Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup unworthily." v.27. Drinking the cup is mentioned six times in five verses. Transubstantiation is not a mystery, but an absurdity; not a difficulty but a contradiction. Question: How then do we eat his flesh and drink his blood? Answer: Through the WORD OF GOD. John 6:63 "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh." John 5:24 "He that heareth my Word and believeth on him that sent me, has everlasting life." The scribes who knew Jeremiah 31:31-34, "I will put my law in their inward parts", and Jeremiah 15:16, "Thy words were found and I DID EAT THEM; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart", understood the idea of receiving God's Word into one’s inner being. Peter got the message, while others planned to desert Jesus: "Thou hast the WORDS of eternal life." John 6:68. "Being born again ... by the WORD of God." 1 Peter 1:23-25. Peter knew that Jesus was speaking about the WORD of God, and not about literal flesh and blood. Question: If this doctrine of transubstantiation only arose in the 9th century, and if it is so necessary to Roman Catholic salvation, what happened to those who lived before the 9th century not believing this doctrine? Did they all go to hell? Question: What about the thief on the cross who repented and never took the wafer? Did he go to hell? No! Jesus said he went to paradise.
Many catholics are arrogant enough to say that THEY "gave" us the Bible.
The catholic organisation mearly defined what IT would use as the Bible, NOT what the Bible was.
Long before the council of hippo "gave us the bible", Origen, born A.D. 185 and died A.D. 254, named ALL the books of the Bible in his writings and Eusebius, 270 A.D., lists ALL of the books of the NT.
The Old Testament books were gathered into one volume and were translated from Hebrew into Greek long before Christ came to earth.
It cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo.
God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred books only because of councils or on the basis of councils. It takes no vote or sanction of a council to make the books of the Bible authoritative. Men were able to rightly discern which books were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical councils and men can do so today. A council of men in 390 with no divine authority whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books were inspired, and Catholics argue, "We can accept the Bible only on the authority of the Catholic Church." Can we follow such reasoning?
If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics account for the passage, "A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher...He should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). The Catholic Church does not allow a bishop to marry, while the Bible says "he must be married." Furthermore, if the Bible is a Catholic book, why did they write the Bible as it is, and feel the necessity of putting footnotes at the bottom of the page in effort to keep their subject from believing what is in the text?
If the Bible is a Catholic book,
1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?
Now, please my friend, when you reply to this, please stick to just a couple of points per post, then it will be easier to respond to, unless you want to make a VERY long post answering ALL these points in one post, hoping that no-one will take the trouble to address your points.
A study of the New Testament reveals that ALL Christians are priests. Peter said,"Be you yourselves as living stones, built thereon into a spiritual house,a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 2:5).Thus,all Christians are of that holy priesthood and can offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.There is not a man or group of men on earth who can offer unto God spiritual sacrifices for others. ALL Christians have the right to go to God through Jesus Christ, our High priest (Heb. 4:14-16). There is no priesthood on earth that has the right to forbid each Christian to go directly to God through Christ, or to assume the authority to administer graces and obtain mercy for others. A Roman Catholic priest is one who acts in the place of Christ, supposedly making unbelievers into Christians by "baptising" them. He converts the bread into Christ's flesh in the mass, and he forgives sins in the confessional. In the Bible, all ministers are called elders, bishops or pastors, all referring to the one office, but there is no office of "priest". Christ is our Great High Priest, the only mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), so there is no need for other priests to mediate for us. Peter never called himself a priest, but did call himself a "fellow elder". 1 Peter 5:1. In Acts, there is no reference anywhere to a sacrificing priesthood. In Revelation 1:6 ("hath made us kings and priests unto God"), and in 1 Peter 2:5,9 ("ye are a holy priesthood", "ye are a royal priesthood"), all believers are priests and have direct access to God through Christ. We don't offer an atoning sacrifice because only Christ did this on the cross. The only sacrifices we offer to God are prayers (Ephesians 6:18), praise and money (Hebrews 13:15,16), and ourselves in service to God (Romans 12:1). This Biblical truth of the priesthood of all believers was rediscovered in the Protestant Reformation of the 1500's. A pastor's real job is to preach the gospel, teach the Word of God and pray, not to hear confession, or change bread to flesh etc. Peter in 1 Peter 5 when he instructed fellow preachers, made no mention of any Roman Catholic priest’s practices of today.
How muslim friend, OneGodBeliever believes the Bible has been corrupted.
"You said bible isn't corrupted. Shall we discuss that? I say its clearly is with verses & whole books removed and also contradictions!"
So, lets have a friendly, loving, open discussion on this