The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!

6/6/2015 12:30:38 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
tnteacher101 Morristown, TN 66, joined Aug. 2010	Five Reasons I Reject the Doctrine of Transubstantiation MARCH 8, 2013 C Michael Patton 309 Comments Eschatology, Roman Catholicism The doctrine of Transubstantiation is the belief that the elements of the Lord’s table (bread and wine) supernaturally transform into the body and blood of Christ during the Mass. This is uniquely held by Roman Catholics but some form of a “Real Presence” view is held by Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, and some Anglicans. The Calvinist/Reformed tradition believes in a real spiritual presence but not one of substance. Most of the remaining Protestant traditions (myself included) don’t believe in any real presence, either spiritual or physical, but believe that the Eucharist is a memorial and a proclamation of Christ’s work on the cross (this is often called Zwinglianism). The Roman Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563) defined Transubstantiation this way: By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Session XIII, chapter IV) As well, there is an abiding curse (anathema) placed on all Christians who deny this doctrine: If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ,[42] but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema. (Session XII, Canon I) It is very important to note that Roman Catholics not only believe that taking the Eucharist in the right manner is essential for salvation, but that belief in the doctrine is just as essential. Here are the five primary reasons why I reject the doctrine of Transubstantiation: 1. It takes Christ too literally There does not seem to be any reason to take Christ literally when he institutes the Eucharist with the words, “This is my body” and “This is my blood” (Matt. 26:26-28, et al). Christ often used metaphor in order to communicate a point. For example, he says “I am the door,” “I am the vine,” “You are the salt of the earth,” and “You are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:13-14) but people know that we don’t take such statement literally. After all, who believes that Christ is literally a door swinging on a hinge? 2. It does not take Christ literally enough Let’s say for the sake of the argument that in this instance Christ did mean to be taken literally. What would this mean? Well, it seems hard to escape the conclusion that the night before Christ died on the cross, when he said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood,” that it actually was his body and blood that night before he died. If this were the case, and Christ really meant to be taken literally, we have Christ, before the atonement was actually made, offering the atonement to his disciples. I think this alone gives strong support to a denial of any substantial real presence. 3. It does not take Christ literally enough (2) In each of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) we have the institution of the Eucharist. When the wine is presented, Christ’s wording is a bit different. Here is how it goes in Luke’s Gospel: “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood” (Luk 22:20). Here, if we were really to take Christ literally, the “cup” is the new covenant. It is not the wine, it is the cup that is holy. However, of course, even Roman Catholics would agree that the cup is symbolic of the wine. But why one and not the other? Why can’t the wine be symbolic of his death if the cup can be symbolic of the wine? As well, is the cup actually the “new covenant”? That is what he says. “This cup . . . is the new covenant.” Is the cup the actual new covenant, or only symbolic of it? See the issues? 4. The Gospel of John fails to mention the Eucharist Another significant problem I have with the Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist and its abiding anathemas is that the one Gospel which claims to be written so that people may have eternal life, John (John 20:31), does not even include the institution of the Eucharist. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all tell the story of Christ giving the first Lord’s table, but John decides to leave it out. Why? This issue is made more significant in that John includes more of the “Upper Room” narrative than any of the other Gospels. Nearly one-third of the entire book of John walks us through what Christ did and said that night with his disciples. Yet no breaking of the bread or giving of the wine is included. This is a pretty significant oversight if John meant to give people the message that would lead to eternal life (John 20:31). From the Roman Catholic perspective, his message must be seen as insufficient to lead to eternal life since practice and belief in the Mass are essential for eternal life and he leaves these completely out of the Upper Room narrative. Source of this article: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2013/03/five-reasons-i-reject-the-doctrine-of-transubstantiation/ Steve Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
6/6/2015 12:32:06 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
tnteacher101 Morristown, TN 66, joined Aug. 2010	Article continued: (Some believe that John does mention the importance of belief in Transubstantiation in John 6. The whole, “Why did he let them walk away?” argument. But I think this argument is weak. I talk about that here. Nevertheless, it still does not answer why John left out the institution of the Lord’s Supper. It could be that by A.D. 90, John saw an abuse of the Lord’s table already rising. He may have sought to curb this abuse by leaving the Eucharist completely out of his Gospel. But this, I readily admit, is speculative.) 5. Problems with the Hypostatic Union and the Council of Chalcedon This one is going to be a bit difficult to explain, but let me give it a shot. Orthodox Christianity (not Eastern Orthodox) holds to the “Hypostatic Union” of Christ. This means that we believe that Christ is fully God and fully man. This was most acutely defined at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Important for our conversation is that Christ had to be fully man to fully redeem us. Christ could not be a mixture of God and man, or he could only represent other mixtures of God and man. He is/was one person with two complete natures. These nature do not intermingle (they are “without confusion”). In other words, his human nature does not infect or corrupt his divine nature. And his divine nature does not infect or corrupt his human nature. This is called the communicatio idiomatum (communication of properties or attributes). The attributes of one nature cannot communicate (transfer/share) with another nature. Christ’s humanity did not become divinitized. It remained complete and perfect humanity (with all its limitations). The natures can communicate with the Person, but not with each other. Therefore, the attribute of omnipresence (present everywhere) cannot communicate to his humanity to make his humanity omnipresent. If it did, we lose our representative High Priest, since we don’t have this attribute communicated to our nature. Christ must always remain as we are in order to be the Priest and Pioneer of our faith. What does all of this mean? Christ’s body cannot be at more than one place at a time, much less at millions of places across the world every Sunday during Mass. In this sense, I believe that any real physical presence view denies the definition of Chalcedon and the principles therein. There are many more objections that I could bring including Paul’s lack of mentioning it to the Romans (the most comprehensive presentation of the Gospel in the Bible), some issues of anatomy, issues of idolatry, and just some very practical things concerning Holy Orders, church history, and . . . ahem . . . excrement. But I think these five are significant enough to justify a denial of Transubstantiation. While I respect Roman Catholicism a great deal, I must admit how hard it is for me to believe that a doctrine that is so difficult to defend biblically is held to such a degree that abiding anathemas are pronounced on those who disagree. Again the source of this article: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2013/03/five-reasons-i-reject-the-doctrine-of-transubstantiation/ Steve
6/6/2015 12:38:27 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 63, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Why cant you believe that Jesus is good enough to give Himself to us in this most beautiful and wonderful way?
6/6/2015 2:11:22 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
tnteacher101 Morristown, TN 66, joined Aug. 2010	Quote from ludlowlowell: Why cant you believe that Jesus is good enough to give Himself to us in this most beautiful and wonderful way? Low: Drinking blood or eathing flesh is not somehing that is beautiful or wonderful. Yeshua said we are never, ever, to eat blood. To do so is simply going against the Laws and Commandments of Yahweh. When Yahweh said to eat his Body and His Blood it was symbolic only. I know of no other church denomination that would teach that people are to eat/consume blood. The Catholic Church makes their claim to fame from a very few verses in the Bible and one of those is Matthew 16:19 which says: NIV Matthew 16:13-20 13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. Upon reading Matthew 18:18 and taking into consideration verse 1 Yeshua makes it very clear that the Binding and Loosing is given not to Peter only but to all the true 12 Apostles. Read it for yourself: NIV Matthew 18:1-20 Notice in Verse 1 all the Apostles/Disciples were present and not just Peter. 1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me. 6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell. 10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven. [11] [a] 12 “What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? 13 And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. 14 In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish. 15 “If your brother or sister sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. 18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven. 19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” So it is apparent from reading Matthew Chapter 16 and Chapter 18 that Yeshua did not give the exclusive right to Bind and Loose to Peter only. The other verses that the Catholic claim gives them special boasting rights are in Matthew 26. Here it is: NIV Matthew 26:26-29 26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” The Catholic Church claims that when they have Mass they are actually eating the Flesh and Blood of Christ. Eating the Flesh and Blood of Yeshua was symbolic/symbolism only because Moses, the Prophets, Yeshua and the true 12 Apostles were in 100% agreement that Belivers of God's Word were never, ever, to eat any blood. This teaching of not eating blood is clear throughout the Bible. There is not one verse in the Bible that says it is okay to eat/consume blood. The Catholic Church bases their claim to be Yahweh's only True Church on two concepts that take up only a very few verses in the Bible that were simpy taken out of context and misunderstood by them. At one time in history the Catholic Church could get away with such deceit because they had the authority to execute people that did not agree with their blatantly misundertood interpretations of the Bible. Steve
6/6/2015 2:14:03 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 63, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Unless you eat His Body and drink His Blood, you do not have life in you. Do you consider this to be a hard saying, Steve?
6/6/2015 2:57:14 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
louie6332 Falkville, AL 74, joined Nov. 2011	Tnt, you might just as well entitled your thread: “The words of Christ are false!” Christ said: “This IS my body, This IS my blood, which shall be shed for you. My body is real food and my blood real drink. Unless you eat by body and drink my blood, you will not have life in you.” The apostles said that those who eat and drink the consecrated bread and wine unworthily (in a state of mortal sin) eat and drink to their damnation. When Christ said these words, Unless you eat my body and drink by blood... many left him. You have left him too Tnt, because, like those in his hearing, you will have none of that. Take it literally Tnt, God is not a liar. And you can take my word for that, for, believe it or not, I am not a liar either. Louie
6/6/2015 3:49:44 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
tnteacher101 Morristown, TN 66, joined Aug. 2010	Quote from louie6332: Tnt, you might just as well entitled your thread: “The words of Christ are false!” Christ said: “This IS my body, This IS my blood, which shall be shed for you. My body is real food and my blood real drink. Unless you eat by body and drink my blood, you will not have life in you.” The apostles said that those who eat and drink the consecrated bread and wine unworthily (in a state of mortal sin) eat and drink to their damnation. When Christ said these words, Unless you eat my body and drink by blood... many left him. You have left him too Tnt, because, like those in his hearing, you will have none of that. Take it literally Tnt, God is not a liar. And you can take my word for that, for, believe it or not, I am not a liar either. Louie Louie and Low: What I am saying is that the Catholic Church has all along falsely taught that the bread and wine are the actual Flesh and Blood of Christ. I assume they did this to make people feel that they could only eat the real Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Catholic Church and could not get this magic experience in any other Church. The Catholic Church were merely attempting to make the Catholic Church appear to be Yeshua's only exclusive Chuch. Lots of Churches today attempt to do the same exact thing by trying to make it more than clear that their Church is the only Church people can rely on for their Salvation. No other teachings in the Bible tells us that we are to eat the actual flesh of any person or the blood of any person or animal. That is why I have always thought it was symbolic and not to be taken literally. Like I said before the Catholic Church, in the past, could call anyone that disagreed with their beliefs a Heretic and have them executed. Sometimes when a King or Church has too much authority they get somewhat out of control and do and claim things that are not true or wise. The Catholic Churh, in my humble opinion, have been out of control for quite some time. They think they are so large and so dominate that they can merely push everyone around and tell people to believe things that are not Biblically sound and that make very little sense. If the bread and wine were actually turned into the Flesh and Blood of Christ then there would be a change in the elements of the bread and wine and also a change in the appearance of the bread and wine. In every miracle in the bible there was some sort of change in the person or thing that received the miracle and there were witnesses to that "change". When Yahweh performs a Miracle He is great enough to make it obvious to us that the Miracle has actually taken place. It is not fair for people to be told to believe something that cannot be seen, felt or verified in some way. I am well aware that the Catholic Church have attempted to show proof of an element change in the bread and wine but those attempts simply failed. I think the Catholic Church needs to get off their high horse and start teaching the True Word of God. Listed below are just a few of Yeshua's Laws/Commandments that the Catholic Church are not observing: The Catholic Church doesn't rest/worship on the true Seventh Day Sabbath. The Catholic Church doesn't honor/observe Yahweh's Holy Days. The Catholic Church doesn't forbid the eating of the unclean animals of the Bible. All three of the above are major issues that Moses, the Prophets, Yeshua and the true 12 Apostles believed and observed. Yeshua said that He did not come to do away with one jot or tittle of Yahweh's Laws. It is written in the Bible that Yahweh was the same yesterday, today and forever. The Bible teaches that these Laws and Commandments will remain in effect until Heaven and Earth pass. The last time I looked outside Heaven and Earth were still intact and have certainly not passed. Steve
6/6/2015 3:54:30 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
tnteacher101 Morristown, TN 66, joined Aug. 2010	Quote from ludlowlowell: Why cant you believe that Jesus is good enough to give Himself to us in this most beautiful and wonderful way? Low: That is simply a silly and untrue story that the Catholic Church has told you to believe that cannot be backed up in the Bible. It appears to me that you worship the Catholic Church instead of Yahweh. You need to get your priorities straightened out while there is still time. Steve
6/6/2015 4:04:25 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
bigd9832 Chicago, IL 63, joined Oct. 2007	I have to go along with steve on this one. CLV Lk 22:19 And, taking bread, giving thanks, He breaks it and gives to them, saying, "Take. This is My body, given for your sakes. This do for a recollection of Me." This was a symbolic gesture only. Jesus tells us this Himself.
6/6/2015 6:23:10 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
irishrose0906 Dublin, OH 52, joined Mar. 2013	Jesus did this for a rememberance of him. To actually think you are drinking his blood or eating his flesh would be cannibalistic act. Do you think Jesus wanted that? It was symbolic by consuming the bread or body you were taking in the body of his spiritual teachings. By drinking the wine or blood represented Christ life's energy flowing through you. It was symbolic in meaning stating you were becoming one with Christ.
6/6/2015 6:44:36 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 63, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	"Unless you eat my body, and drink my blood, you do not have life in you." --Jesus "For my flesh is real food and my blood real drink." --Jesus Are these hard saying? Many of the Jews thought so, too, and quit following Jesus. Irishrose, Tnt, and Bigd, now that you have heard these words of Jesus, will you quit following Him too?
6/6/2015 7:09:58 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
bigd9832 Chicago, IL 63, joined Oct. 2007	Quote from irishrose0906: Jesus did this for a rememberance of him. To actually think you are drinking his blood or eating his flesh would be cannibalistic act. Do you think Jesus wanted that? It was symbolic by consuming the bread or body you were taking in the body of his spiritual teachings. By drinking the wine or blood represented Christ life's energy flowing through you. It was symbolic in meaning stating you were becoming one with Christ. CLV Jn 17:11 And no longer am I in the world, and they are in the world, and I to Thee am coming. Holy Father, keep them in Thy name, in which Thou hast given them to Me, that they may be one, according as We are. CLV Jn 17:21 that they may all be one, according as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us, that the world should be believing that Thou dost commission Me. CLV 1C 15:28 Now, whenever*all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that God may be All in all. ludlow... No one in their right mind would believe that. The Catholic church is corrupt.
6/6/2015 11:07:43 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 63, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	O Sacrament most holy O Sacrament divine All praise and all thanksgiving Be every moment thine. --a Catholic hymn
6/7/2015 4:20:49 AM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
bigd9832 Chicago, IL 63, joined Oct. 2007	It is the Holy Spirit that replenishes Our life and spirit. Not communion. The Catholic church is corrupt.
6/7/2015 4:29:41 AM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
tnteacher101 Morristown, TN 66, joined Aug. 2010	Low and Louie: It appears that the tare Paul may be at the bottom of the strange story of the bread and wine turning to the Flesh and Blood of Christ. Paul could take a very good thing and turn it into something not so good. Eating the actual Flesh and Blood of Christ simply doesn't fit what Moses, the Prophets, Yeshua and the true 12 Apostles taught in the Bible. Blood was simply not to be consumed by humans. The following article shows how Paul was the very one that was behind this strange story of the Lord's Supper turning into the Flesh and Blood of Christ. Here it is: “Eat My Body, Drink My Blood”? Did Jesus Really Say This? Posted on December 15, 2013 One of the more controversial but significant arguments I make in my new book, Paul and Jesus, is that the traditional words attributed to Jesus at the Last Supper–“This is my body,” “This is my blood” over the bread and wine–originated with Paul not with Jesus! Here is a summary of my reasons for reaching this conclusion and I invite readers to explore in depth this and other ways Paul and Jesus differed by reading the book itself. Adoration Ghent This most central of all Christian rites—the Eucharist or Holy Communion—involving eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, however understood, is at once as familiar as it is strange. Here is what Paul writes to the Corinthians around A.D. 54: For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is [broken] for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:23-25). Mark, our earliest gospel, written between 75-80 A.D. has the following scene of Jesus’ Last Supper: And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many” (Mark 14:22-24). The precise verbal similarities between these two accounts are quite remarkable considering that Paul’s version was written at least twenty years earlier than Mark’s. Where would Paul have gotten such a detailed description of what Jesus had said on the night he was betrayed? The common assumption has been that this core tradition, so central to the original Jesus movement, had circulated orally for decades in the various Christian communities. Paul could have received it directly from Peter or James, on his first visit to Jerusalem around A.D. 40, or learned it from the Christian congregation in Antioch, where, according to the book of Acts, he first established himself (Acts 11:25). What Paul plainly says is easy to overlook: “For I received from the Lord what I handed on to you.” His language is clear and unequivocal. He is not saying, “I received it from one of the apostles, and thus indirectly it came from the Lord,” or “I learned it in Antioch, but they had gotten it by tradition from the Lord.” Paul uses precisely the same language to defend the revelation of his Gospel and how it came to him. He says he did not receive it from any man, nor was he taught it, but swears with an oath, “I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:11-12). This means that what Paul passes on here regarding the Lord’s Supper, including the words of Jesus over the bread and the wine, comes to us from Paul and Paul alone! We have every reason to take him at his word. Though it might sound strange to us that anyone would claim to have received by revelation a narrative of Jesus’ last meal with his disciples, years after the event, Paul considered that sort of thing a normal manifestation of his prophetic connection with the Spirit of Christ. One of the gifts of the spirit was a “word of knowledge,” and such a revelation could apply to the past, the present, or the future. In the same way Paul claims to have received a detailed scenario of precisely what will happen in the future when Jesus returns. He prefaces his revelation with the claim, “For this I declare to you by the word of the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 4:15). Paul says that he hears from Jesus. To speculate as to where Paul derived the ideas he claims were given to him by revelation is to enter into his personal psychology to a degree to which we have no access. The task of a historian is to analyze what one might claim, but any attempt to rationally account for what a visionary claims to “see” is outside the realm of historical inquiry. Since Paul’s account is the earliest we have of the Last Supper we have to be very careful in reading the gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, all of which record a similar account, but were written decades later. In other words we can’t begin with Mark, our earliest gospel, and assume that Jesus actually said these words at the Last Supper, and then go to Paul, who comes after Jesus, as if he is just echoing the primary account. Things are precisely the other way around. We have every reason to believe that Mark got his tradition of the words of Jesus at the last Supper from Paul! Matthew and Luke, who then use Mark as a source, are also, indirectly, just repeating what Paul had said decades earlier.1 One way of sharpening this is to ask two questions that take us beyond Paul and back to Jesus. Is it historically probable that Jesus held a Last Supper with his disciples on the night before his death? Is it historically probable that Jesus uttered words about the bread being his body and the cup of wine his blood? For the first question we have two independent ancient sources: Mark (who is echoed by Matthew and Luke) and the gospel of John. Both report that Jesus ate such a meal and it is reasonable to assume such is the case. For the second question Paul is our only source reporting that Jesus spoke of the bread as his body and the wine as his blood—since Mark, Matthew, and Luke derive their accounts from him. John reports an intimate meal Jesus had with his disciples but never says anything about words such as these spoken over bread and wine. It is difficult to imagine John, who was aware of the other gospels, leaving such an important tradition out of his gospel except by intention. His silence is essentially his “no” vote on the historical reliability of our single source—Paul. Source of the above article: http://jamestabor.com/2013/12/15/eat-my-body-drink-my-blood-did-jesus-really-say-this/ Steve
6/7/2015 4:41:03 AM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
tnteacher101 Morristown, TN 66, joined Aug. 2010	The article continued: But there is another reason for doubting the historical validity of Paul’s account. Other than Paul, a wholly alternative record of the words spoken at a Christian Eucharist celebration over the bread and the wine come from the early Christian text we call the Didache (pronounced did-a-káy) that are completely different from the words of Jesus that Paul reports. You shall give thanks as follows: First, with respect to the cup: “We give you thanks, our Father, for the holy vine of David, your child, which you made known to us through Jesus your child. To you be the glory forever.” And with respect to the fragments of bread: “We give you thanks our Father, for the life and knowledge that you made known to us through Jesus your child. To you be the glory forever” (Didache 9:2-3).2 This precious text, discovered quite by chance in the library in Constantinople in 1873, provides us with clear evidence that early Christian communities were gathering together for a common thanksgiving meal called the Eucharist, blessing bread and wine, but with no connection whatsoever to the Pauline words associated with the Lord’s Supper that became the norm within Christianity. It is also noteworthy that both Jesus and David are equated in this prayer as “your child,” showing the fully human understanding of Jesus as a bloodline descendant of David and thus heir of his royal dynasty. The Didache as a whole, shows no influence of Paul’s teachings or traditions. It fits well with the broader picture we have seen based on the Q source, the letter of James, and the scattered texts that we can identify from later Jewish-Christian sources. What Jesus said at his Last Supper with his disciples we have no way of knowing but there is evidence he thought of that meal as a “Messianic banquet” to be eaten in anticipation of the their table fellowship in the future kingdom of God. He tells the Twelve: “You are those who have continued with me in my trials: and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 22:28). This saying of Jesus is from the Q source (our earliest collection of the sayings of Jesus), not from Paul, but Luke, who connects it to the Last Supper. Luke’s version of Q is generally considered to be more accurate in preserving the structure of Q. Luke relies on his source Mark his Lord’s Supper account, including the Pauline tradition of the words of institution about eating the body and drinking the blood of Jesus. But surprisingly, Luke knows another alternative source with no such language! He ends up placing them both into his narrative, juxtaposed one after the other: Luke 22:20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood (Luke 22:19-20) When one reads both traditions as a unit it makes little sense, because Jesus ends up taking the cup twice, but saying entirely different things. When the two traditions are separated each forms a discrete unit. Oddly, Mark appears to preserve just a bit of this more primitive Jewish tradition, since Jesus concludes the meal by saying: “Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God” (Mark 14:25). Matthew includes this verse as well, copying it from Mark (Matthew 26:29). The reason it is odd is that it does not fit well with the Pauline “this is my body” and “this is my blood” tradition that Mark makes the center of his Last Supper scene. Jesus is obviously not anticipating one day drinking his own blood with the disciples in the kingdom. Evidently Mark knew something of the two traditions but mutes the one while playing up the other. He was perhaps bothered by the idea of two different scenes of Jesus blessing the cup, but with different words of interpretation, so he drops the first one. Luke leaves them both, juxtaposed, even though they might be seen as contradictory. This convolution of Luke was sufficiently bothersome to some scribes that the Western text tradition (based on the 5th century A.D. Codex Bezae) drops the second cup scene (verses 19b-20) entirely; leaving a contradictory combination of Tradition A and B that makes little sense.3 This idea, often referred to as the “Messianic Banquet,” is described clearly in the Dead Sea Scrolls. When the Messiah comes all his chosen ones sit down at a common table with him, in the Kingdom, with blessings over bread and wine: When God brings forth the Messiah, he shall come with them at the head of the whole congregation of Israel with all his brethren, the sons of Aaron the Priest . . .and the chiefs of the clans of Israel shall sit before him . . . And when they shall gather for the common table, to eat and to drink new wine . . . let no man extend his hand over the firstfruits of bread and wine before the Priest; for he shall bless the firstfruits of bread and wine . . .Thereafter, the Messiah of Israel shall extend his hand over the bread and all the congregation of the Community shall utter a blessing . . .4 One thing seems clear. The idea of eating the body and blood of ones god, even in a symbolic manner, fits nothing we know of Jesus or the Jewish culture from which he comes. The technical term theophagy refers to “eating the body of ones god,” either literally or symbolically, and various researchers have noted examples of the idea in Greek religious traditions in which the deity was symbolically consumed.5 Although some scholars have tried to locate Paul’s version of the Eucharist within the wider tradition of “sacred banquets” common in Greco-Roman society, his specific language about participating in the spiritual efficacy of Jesus’ sacrificed body and blood by eating the bread and drinking the wine seems to take us into another arena entirely.6 The closest parallels we have to this kind of idea are found in Greek magical materials form this period. For example, in one of the magical papyri we read of a spell in which one drinks a cup of wine has been ritually consecrated to represent the blood of the god Osiris, in order to participate in the spiritual power of love he had for his consort Isis.7 Jesus lived as an observant Jew, keeping the Torah or Laws of Moses and teaching others to do the same. Jews were strictly forbidden to consume blood or even to eat meat that had not had the blood properly drained and removed (Lev. 7:26-27). The Jewish followers of Jesus, led by Jesus’ brother James, were quite stringent on this point, insisting that it applied equally to non-Jews as well as Jews, based on the prohibition to Noah and all his descendants after the Flood. They forbade non-Jewish followers of Jesus to eat meat that had been killed by strangling, or to consume any blood (Acts 15:19-20). Paul was admittedly lax on these restrictions and tells his followers they can eat any kind of meat sold in the marketplace, presumably even animals killed by strangulation, so long as no one present happens to notice and object on the basis of biblical teachings (1 Corinthians 10:25-29). Again the source of this article: http://jamestabor.com/2013/12/15/eat-my-body-drink-my-blood-did-jesus-really-say-this/ Steve
6/7/2015 6:23:27 AM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 63, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Reading all that garbage is cheating you out of Something very precious indeed, Steve---Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist.
6/7/2015 12:13:14 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
bigd9832 Chicago, IL 63, joined Oct. 2007	First off, the word "eucharist" is not Scriptural. It is obvious that the Catholic church has been busy making up words to support their man-made doctrines. No wonder they want authority over the Bible. CLV 2Ti 1:13 Have a pattern of sound words, which you hear from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Examples of UNsound Words... hell purgatory fornication heresy pope trinity cardinal catholic arch-bishop monsignor venial sins mortal sins sacraments eucharist redemption lent easter christmas Products of an apostate church.
6/7/2015 1:12:38 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
tnteacher101 Morristown, TN 66, joined Aug. 2010	Quote from ludlowlowell: Reading all that garbage is cheating you out of Something very precious indeed, Steve---Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist. Low: I think you will have to admit that James Tabor, the author of the above article, had his fingers on the very pulse of the blatant mistruth that the Catholic Church has concocted about the bread and wine being magically turned into the true Flesh and Blood of Christ. I am sure you noticed that the tare Paul is also the very person that is behind the Catholic Church's claim of the more than odd teaching of Eucharist . It appears that the tare Paul has been behind many other strange beliefs of the Catholic Church that have absolutely no support from the teachings of Moses, the Prothets, Yeshua and the true 12 Apostles. I have previously mentiond them and for the sake of clarity will briefly mention them again. Those are: 1. Paul's claim that the true Seventh Day Sabbath/Rest, which had always been observed on Saturday, has been changed to the Sun Worshipers Day of Sunday. 2. Paul's claim that God's forbidden unclean animals of the Bible have been cleansed to eat. 3. Paul's claim that God's Holy Days are no longer to be observed/honored. 4. Paul's claim that Circumcision of the flesh was/is worthless and no longer to be performed. 5. Paul's claim that God's Laws and Commandments were done away with and were nailed to the Cross. 6. Paul's claim that all people are under "Grace and Faith" only and that works are a curse to us. It appears that, for the most part, all the important Laws and Commandements of Yahweh have been merely dismissed and nullified by the murderer, tare and false Apostle Paul. The Catholic Church is simply following the silly and worthless teachings of Paul and have disregarded the wonderful and blessed teachings of the all powerful and the only true God which is Yahweh. Steve
6/7/2015 3:24:52 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
share_n_love Fort Wayne, IN 60, joined Dec. 2012	5. Problems with the Hypostatic Union and the Council of Chalcedon This one is going to be a bit difficult to explain, but let me give it a shot. Orthodox Christianity (not Eastern Orthodox) holds to the “Hypostatic Union” of Christ. This means that we believe that Christ is fully God and fully man. This was most acutely defined at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Important for our conversation is that Christ had to be fully man to fully redeem us. Christ could not be a mixture of God and man, or he could only represent other mixtures of God and man. He is/was one person with two complete natures. These nature do not intermingle (they are “without confusion”). In other words, his human nature does not infect or corrupt his divine nature. And his divine nature does not infect or corrupt his human nature. This is called the communicatio idiomatum (communication of properties or attributes). The attributes of one nature cannot communicate (transfer/share) with another nature. Christ’s humanity did not become divinitized. It remained complete and perfect humanity (with all its limitations). The natures can communicate with the Person, but not with each other. Therefore, the attribute of omnipresence (present everywhere) cannot communicate to his humanity to make his humanity omnipresent. If it did, we lose our representative High Priest, since we don’t have this attribute communicated to our nature. Christ must always remain as we are in order to be the Priest and Pioneer of our faith. What does all of this mean? Christ’s body cannot be at more than one place at a time, much less at millions of places across the world every Sunday during Mass. In this sense, I believe that any real physical presence view denies the definition of Chalcedon and the principles therein. I like this description...
6/7/2015 3:46:16 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
wayn49 Birmingham, AL 54, joined Feb. 2011	i believe it represents a remembrance of his life, his death and his resurrection the bible is clear that we are not to drink or eat real blood
6/7/2015 4:15:20 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 63, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	I'm glad you can accept the Council of Chalcedon's explanation of Jesus being One Person but with two divine natures, rightly called the hypostaic union. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe all all this about Jesus to this day, as do many Protestants. The Catholics and Eastern Orthodox also have the same belief about the Holy Eucharist.
6/7/2015 4:30:06 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
tnteacher101 Morristown, TN 66, joined Aug. 2010	Quote from ludlowlowell: I'm glad you can accept the Council of Chalcedon's explanation of Jesus being One Person but with two divine natures, rightly called the hypostaic union. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe all all this about Jesus to this day, as do many Protestants. The Catholics and Eastern Orthodox also have the same belief about the Holy Eucharist. Low: From what I have read I thought the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church were very similar in thier beliefs. I don't think I have ever met any members of the Orthodox Church. Steve
6/7/2015 5:36:01 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 63, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Except on some minor details, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox beliefs are the same, except that the EOs reject the pope. They are what we call in "schism" from the Catholic Church, not as bad as being in heresy, like Protestants are. The EOs do have a different liturgy from Catholics---they use ancient Greek or Russian instead of Latin like we used to---but at every Divine Liturgy (their word for Mass) bread and wine are consecrated into the actual living Body and Blood of Christ. Although they are separate from the Church their priesthood still has apostolic succession and their Eucharists are valid. It really is the Body and Blood of Christ. Their priests can be married and they use leavened bread, not unleavened like Catholics and Protestants do, but their Eucharist is still valid. Some EO churches later returned to the Catholic Church. These are called Eastern rite Catholics---they use their own liturgy but recognize the authority of the pope. Some, like the Maronites of Lebanon, never left. [Edited 6/7/2015 5:36:54 PM ]
6/7/2015 6:08:47 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
bigd9832 Chicago, IL 63, joined Oct. 2007	I think the Catholic are the heretics. The Catholic church is corrupt.
6/7/2015 6:22:23 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
prophetic774 Winter Haven, FL 65, joined Feb. 2011	Louie and the Roman Catholic Church says: You say that Christ did away with sacrifice and oblation, but he did not. Christ himself is a sacrifice, the Pascal lamb of the new covenant, whose body and blood is offered up on Catholic altars around the world in reparation for the sins of men, it is the sacrifice of Calvary translated through time to the Catholic altar. Christ himself is a sacrifice, a pure and holy sacrifice and oblation. It was not Christ who did away with the animal and cereal offerings of the Jews, it was Peter who did that for Christians under the authority that Christ gave him: But what does God's Word say?? Acts 15:20,29 and Acts 21:25 commands NT believers to abstain from drinking blood! Hebrews 7:27: Unlike the other high priests, He {Jesus} does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people. HE SACRIFICED FOR THEIR SINS ONCE FOR ALL WHEN HE OFFERED HIMSELF!! Hebrews 9:15,26b-28: Christ is the mediator of a NEW COVENANT so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant...But now He has APPEARED ONCE FOR ALL at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the SACRIFICE of Himself... so Christ was SACRIFICED ONCE TO TAKE AWAY THE SINS OF MANY PEOPLE, and He will APPEAR a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him. Hebrews 10:10: “We have been made holy through the SACRIFICE of the body of Jesus ONCE FOR ALL!!” Hebrews 10:11,12,14,17,18: Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can NEVER take away sins! But when this PRIEST {Jesus} had offered ONE SACRIFICE for sins, He sat down at the right hand of God...By ONE SACRICE He has made perfect forever those who are being made holy...God says, "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." And where these have been forgiven, THERE IS NO LONGER ANY SACRIFICE FOR SINS !! Isaiah 53:5,6: He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all!!{Including Mary}
6/7/2015 6:38:45 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 63, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Bigd, I thought you said there was no such thing as heresy.
6/7/2015 8:24:39 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
tnteacher101 Morristown, TN 66, joined Aug. 2010	I listed some major issues earlier on this thread that the Catholic Church doesn't support or follow. Here they are again: 1. Paul's claim that the true Seventh Day Sabbath/Rest, which had always been observed on Saturday, has been changed to the Sun Worshipers Day of Sunday. 2. Paul's claim that God's forbidden unclean animals of the Bible have been cleansed to eat. 3. Paul's claim that God's Holy Days are no longer to be observed/honored. 4. Paul's claim that Circumcision of the flesh was/is worthless and no longer to be performed. 5. Paul's claim that God's Laws and Commandments were done away with and were nailed to the Cross. 6. Paul's claim that all people are under "Grace and Faith" only and that "works" are a curse to us. The above Laws/Commandments were followed by Moses, the Prophets, Yeshua and the true 12 Apostles. It is my view that the Catholic Church has turned from the Laws and Commandments of Yahweh and are following the strange teachings of the murderer, tare and false Apostle Paul. The Catholic Church simply worship Paul instead of Yahweh. The Catholic Church should call their members Paulinians instead of CHRISTians. Can any Catholic member/person tell me, with a straight face, so to speak, why the Catholic Church has turned from following these very important Laws and Commandments of Yahweh? Steve
6/7/2015 8:45:30 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
share_n_love Fort Wayne, IN 60, joined Dec. 2012	With due respect tnt, Paul NEVER declared that any of the items you listed were changed or done away with tnt.
6/7/2015 10:53:52 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
tnteacher101 Morristown, TN 66, joined Aug. 2010	Quote from share_n_love: With due respect tnt, Paul NEVER declared that any of the items you listed were changed or done away with tnt. Share: Surely I have not been imagining that all this time. I know very well Paul changed his mind often. He would say one thing and then in the next chapter say the exact opposite. Paul has always talked out of both sides of his mouth, so to speak, and as always appeared to me that he has been a loose cannon in that one could never predict what he was going to do or say next. I know Paul said God's Laws had been nailed to the Cross. I know he said God's Laws were a curse to us. I know Paul said to eat meat that was sold in the market place even though it may have been sacrificed to Baal. I know Paul taught that the unclean animals were mysteriously cleansed. He said so many things that Moses, the Prophets, Yeshua and the true False Apostles did not approve of. Steve
6/8/2015 12:19:40 AM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 63, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	The Passover prefigured the Mass. Under the Old Covenant the angel of death passed over doors with animal blood; in the New Covenant the angel of death passes over those who have drunk the Lord's Blood. The manna in the desert pregigured Holy Communion.
6/8/2015 12:25:10 AM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
bigd9832 Chicago, IL 63, joined Oct. 2007	Yes. It is symbolic of Jesus second coming and His eliminating of death. But this hasn't happened yet. The Catholic church is corrupt.
6/8/2015 12:36:30 AM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 63, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Tnt wonders why the Gospel of John leaves out the Last Supper story. It does, but then there is John's sixth chapter. This chapter tells how Jesus went on and on explaining how His followers must eat His Body and drink His Blood, and how His Flesh was real food and His Blood real drink. When some of His followers quit following Him after this, He did not try to call them back by saying, Hey wait a minute! I meant it as a symbol only!
6/8/2015 12:54:31 AM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
share_n_love Fort Wayne, IN 60, joined Dec. 2012	Quote from tnteacher101: Share: Surely I have not been imagining that all this time. I know very well Paul changed his mind often. He would say one thing and then in the next chapter say the exact opposite. Paul has always talked out of both sides of his mouth, so to speak, and as always appeared to me that he has been a loose cannon in that one could never predict what he was going to do or say next. I know Paul said God's Laws had been nailed to the Cross. I know he said God's Laws were a curse to us. I know Paul said to eat meat that was sold in the market place even though it may have been sacrificed to Baal. I know Paul taught that the unclean animals were mysteriously cleansed. He said so many things that Moses, the Prophets, Yeshua and the true False Apostles did not approve of. Steve No achi he did not. Most read his comments out of context but he did not say any of the things you just stated. Also, some things in God's word was meant for Israelites, some for Jews and some for Gentiles. [Edited 6/8/2015 12:56:06 AM ]
6/8/2015 1:33:26 AM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 63, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	The sixth chapter of John starts off with the miracle of the loaves and fishes. This was done to prefigure the Lord's teaching, later on in that chapter, that we would have to eat His Body and drink His Blood. As the loaves and fish miraculously multiplied, so does Jesus' Body and Blood, all over the world.
6/8/2015 9:14:24 AM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
visitingfriends Evansville, WI 76, joined Jan. 2011	Quote from ludlowlowell: The sixth chapter of John starts off with the miracle of the loaves and fishes. This was done to prefigure the Lord's teaching, later on in that chapter, that we would have to eat His Body and drink His Blood. As the loaves and fish miraculously multiplied, so does Jesus' Body and Blood, all over the world. By Dr. Taylor Marshal What is the meaning of the 12 and 7 baskets left over from Christ’s feeding of 5000 and 4000 in the Gospels? The Evangelists often omit details but they always specify the numbers in these episodes. Christ Himself asks them plainly: “ “When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” They said to him, “Twelve.” “And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” And they said to him, “Seven.” 21 And he said to them, “Do you not yet understand?” (St Mark 8:19-21) Clearly Christ expects His apostles and us by extension to make an [obvious] conclusion about these numbers. But most of us cannot make a conclusion…because we do not know the Old Testament Scriptures! Here are the numeric equations: Feeds 5000 with 5 loaves 12 baskets left over Feeds 4000 with 7 loaves 7 baskets left over The interpretive key or secret here is the preceding story of Christ referring to “bread” being reserved only to the children of Israel (St Mark 7:24-30). The Gentile Syro-Phoenician woman then says, “Yes Lord, but even the dogs under the table eat the crumbs of the children.” Christ loves her answer! He just wanted someone to “get this.” The Apostles did not, but she did. So this whole business about bread and baskets left over refers to bread for the nation of Israel and then bread for the Gentiles in their midst. The first number is something God/Christ takes and the result is something yielded from the number. It’s easier if we work backward: The number 12 almost always refers to the 12 tribes of Israel. It is the national number of the People of God. The number 7 can refer to the Sabbath (seventh day), holiness, or completion. It’s also the number of the universe since the 7th day brought completion and peace to the creative act of God. The number 70 (7×10=70) is often used by Jews to describe the universal (Catholic) fulness of the Gentiles. Given the presence of the Syro-Phoenician woman, the number 7 here represents the seven Gentile nations that occupied the Promised Land during the time of Moses (see Deuteronomy 7:1 for the list). The Promised Land was occupied by the 12 Tribes of Israel and the competing 7 Nations of the Gentiles. Here’s how it signifies redemptive history: Old Covenant: Christ first feeds people and yields the 12 baskets. This is God first establishing the People of Israel (12 tribes) in the Old Testament. New Covenant: Christ thereafter (literally “after three days” see Mark 8:2) feeds people and yields the 7 baskets. This is God next establishing the Catholic Church – the fulness of the Gentiles (7 nations) in covenant with God. So that’s how it works out. Christ is prompting His apostles to “get it” and see that the Gentiles are going to be brought into the basket “after three days” (Mark 8:2). My guess is that Saint Paul is later placed “in a basket” because He is the designated Apostle to the Gentiles. God is amazing! All this proves that you cannot really understand Christ and the New Testament unless you are deep into the Old Testament.
6/8/2015 9:24:32 AM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
visitingfriends Evansville, WI 76, joined Jan. 2011	This was an interesting comment by one person on this article. And, by the way, I saw Consuming the Word on EWTN where Aquilina and Hahn discussed the meaning of seven in Hebrew and its link to the oath between Abraham and Abimelech and how that word is sacramenum in Latin.
6/8/2015 4:39:24 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
tnteacher101 Morristown, TN 66, joined Aug. 2010	Low and Visiting: Have you read this article? It shows that the bread and wine are not changed to the Flesh and Blood of Christ. You may or may not want to read it. Here it is: Despite condition, girl's first Communion deemed invalid BRIELLE, N.J. (AP) — An 8-year-old girl who suffers from a rare digestive disorder and cannot eat wheat has had her first Holy Communion declared invalid because the wafer contained no wheat, violating Roman Catholic doctrine. Now, Haley Waldman's mother is pushing the Diocese of Trenton and the Vatican to make an exception, saying the girl's condition should not exclude her from the sacrament, which commemorates the Last Supper of Jesus Christ before his crucifixion. The mother believes a rice Communion wafer would suffice. "It's just not a viable option. How does it corrupt the tradition of the Last Supper? It's just rice versus wheat," said Elizabeth Pelly-Waldman. Church doctrine holds that Communion wafers, like the bread served at the Last Supper, must have at least some unleavened wheat. Church leaders are reluctant to change anything about the sacrament. "This is not an issue to be determined at the diocesan or parish level, but has already been decided for the Roman Catholic Church throughout the world by Vatican authority," Trenton Bishop John Smith said in a statement last week. Haley was diagnosed with celiac sprue disease when she was 5. The disorder occurs in people with a genetic intolerance of gluten, a food protein contained in wheat and other grains. When consumed by celiac sufferers, gluten (pronounced GLOO'-ten) damages the lining of the small intestine, blocking nutrient absorption and leading to vitamin deficiencies, bone-thinning and sometimes gastrointestinal cancer. The diocese has told Haley's mother that the girl can receive a low-gluten wafer, or just drink wine at Communion, but that anything without gluten does not qualify. Pelly-Waldman rejected the offer, saying her child could be harmed by even a small amount of the substance. Haley's Communion controversy isn't the first. In 2001, the family of a 5-year-old Massachusetts girl with the disease left the Catholic church after being denied permission to use a rice wafer. Some Catholic churches allow no-gluten hosts, while others do not, said Elaine Monarch, executive director of the Celiac Disease Foundation, a California-based support group for sufferers. "It is an undue hardship on a person who wants to practice their religion and needs to compromise their health to do so," Monarch said. The church has similar rules for Communion wine. For alcoholics, the church allows a substitute for wine under some circumstances, however the drink must still be fermented from grapes and contain some alcohol. Grape juice is not a valid substitute. Haley, a shy, brown-haired tomboy who loves surfing and hates wearing dresses, realizes the consequences of taking a wheat wafer. "I'm on a gluten-free diet because I can't have wheat. I could die," she said last week. Last year, as the third grader approached Holy Communion age in this Jersey Shore town, her mother told officials at St. Denis Catholic Church in Manasquan that the girl could not have the standard host. After the church's pastor refused to allow a substitute, a priest at a nearby parish volunteered to offer one, and in May, Haley wore a white Communion dress, and received the sacrament alongside her mother, who had not taken Communion since she herself was diagnosed with the disease. Last month, the diocese told the priest that the church would not validate Haley's sacrament because of the substitute wafer. "I struggled with telling her that the sacrament did not happen," said Pelly-Waldman. "She lives in a world of rules. She says 'Mommy, do we want to break a rule? Are we breaking a rule?'" Pelly-Waldman is seeking help from the Pope and has written to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, challenging the church's policy. "This is a church rule, not God's will, and it can easily be adjusted to meet the needs of the people, while staying true to the traditions of our faith," Pelly-Waldman wrote in the letter. Pelly-Waldman — who is still attending Mass every Sunday with her four children — said she is not out to bash the church, just to change the policy that affects her daughter. "I'm hopeful. Do I think it will be a long road to change? Yes. But I'm raising an awareness and I'm taking it one step at a time," she said. -USA Today 8-20-2004 The problem arises here with this simple fact. Rome says... "If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist (communion wafer) are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema." (An exhausted definition of "Anathema" = To be damned and put to death) p.79, Canon 1 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651). From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.1413 According to Rome, when that bread changes it is Jesus Christ incarnate! So, if it really changes, why is it the girl can not take the host? According to Roman theology the Wheat is gone! So she should have no problems. However, she does have problems. This proves the Wheat is still in that bread and Rome lied once again! And all it took was for the Lord to allow a little 8 year old child to be allergic to gluten! Source of the article: http://www.remnantofgod.org/transubstantiation.htm Steve [Edited 6/8/2015 4:40:28 PM ]
6/8/2015 4:47:41 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
share_n_love Fort Wayne, IN 60, joined Dec. 2012	Oh my tnt what a sad story. This reminds me of what Yahshua said in Mt, Mk, and Lk. Ty for sharing this... But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
6/8/2015 5:49:23 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
visitingfriends Evansville, WI 76, joined Jan. 2011	The sacraments are far too important to risk performing them invalidly. On the practical level, sufferers from celiac disease, about one in every 130 people, face a real difficulty as they are incapable of consuming gluten. At the same time the Church has too much respect for the faithful with this condition to allow them to fall into error regarding whether they receive a genuinely consecrated host or not. It would be a manifest act of negligence on the Church's part to look the other way while some members of the faithful were being innocently induced into an act of idolatry by attributing adoration to what is in fact a lump of matter. This might seem harsh on the sentiments of some, especially in the case of children who reach the age of first Communion and don't want to stand out from the rest by receiving differently. But, until recently, as we shall see below, there was no viable alternative. One fairly easy solution is to receive only under the species of wine. This usually requires the use of a second, smaller chalice as even the particle of host that the priest places in the chalice can have adverse effects on sufferers. Christ is fully present under either species, body, blood, soul, and divinity.
6/8/2015 5:56:55 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
tnteacher101 Morristown, TN 66, joined Aug. 2010	Quote from share_n_love: Oh my tnt what a sad story. This reminds me of what Yahshua said in Mt, Mk, and Lk. Ty for sharing this... But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Share: I would think that sad story should be more than enough to prove that the bread and wine is simply not turned into the real Flesh and Blood of Christ. Let's see if any of the Catholic Followers on this site come forward and admit that they have been totally wrong all along. It takes a big person to admit it when that person finally realizes that they are wrong. Share: The person that wrote the article below explains why the Catholics believe the way they do on the Eucharist. Here is part of the article: Why does the Roman Catholic Church Interpret John 6:53-54 Literally? It is a grave error to teach that Jesus was literally saying to receive forgiveness one must literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. The question one must try to determine why such a blatant misinterpretation was made. The reason is seen in that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that it is the sole means of a person receiving salvation. This has given the Roman Catholic Church and their Pope at great power over their people. Anyone who is not baptized, is not a member in good standing of the Roman church, and do not receives its sacraments are outside God's grace and must come to the Roman Church for redemption. The Lation phrase "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" is their historic doctrine and means "outside the church there is no salvation. An example of this is seen in that their church can withhold the Eucharist from a member the church or even a whole nation, and according to their teaching, withholding the grace of God and for giveness of sin from those people. 4 The Roman church practices excommunication in which it denies the sacarments to those who commit grave sins. This means the offender cannot receive the sacraments and those are denied God's mercy and grace. This gave the Pope and the Roman Church great power to force its will on people, and even nations through the practice of the "Anathema." During the Middle Ages Roman used excommunication and the denial of the Mass and the Eucharist to obtain political power over the kings and rulers of Europe. Source of the above: http://bible-truth.org/Eucharist.html Steve [Edited 6/8/2015 5:57:25 PM ]
6/8/2015 6:22:03 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
tnteacher101 Morristown, TN 66, joined Aug. 2010	Share: This is another article that should give more than enough proof that anyone would need to dispell the myth of Transubstantiation. Here it is: Why the Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation Is False! By Glendol McClure The false Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation is best defined in their own publications. On page 273 of the Baltimore Catechism, we read the following: "The Holy Eucharist is a sacrament and a sacrifice. In the Holy Eucharist, under the appearances of bread and wine, the Lord Christ is contained, offered, and received. (a) The whole Christ is really, truly and substantially present in the Holy Eucharist. We use the words 'really, truly, and substantially' to describe Christ's presence in the Holy Eucharist in order to distinguish our Lord's teaching from that of mere men who falsely teach that the Holy Eucharist is only a sign or figure of Christ, or that He is present only by His power…” Recently, there was a discussion with an erring brother who now believes, supports, and defends this false doctrine. He wrote, in part: "I reread what the Lord wrote in the Bible, and began to see that if the Scriptures are all truth, and if we are not to transgress or go beyond the Scriptures, my opinion must be wrong. How? Christ says that the bread and juice are his body and blood. He doesn't say it's a representation of his body and blood. To confirm this I asked a Greek [sic] scholar. The language, it turns out, distinguishes between representational phrases and phrases speaking of an actuality. It turns out that the Greek does not support the argument that Christ was speaking metaphorically. In fact, it supports the opposite opinion. This truth made me rethink a lot of the principles on which the Church of Christ rests its doctrine." It is interesting to note that Bible scholars, such as Albert E. Barnes, William Hendrickson, Matthew Henry, J.W. McGarvey, and Phillip Y. Pendleton, deny what this erring brother's unidentified "scholar" claims. On page 658 of the Fourfold Gospel, by J.W. McGarvey and Phillip Y. Pendelton, we read: "The Catholics and some few others take our Lord's words literally when He says, 'this is My body.' On this, they found the doctrine of Transubstantiation, i.e., that the bread and the wine, when blessed by the priest, become literal body and blood. There are many weighty arguments against such a doctrine, but the main one for it is found in these words of our Lord. But Jesus could not have meant them literally, for his body was untouched and his blood unshed on this occasion when he spoke them. Moreover, in the twenty-fifth verse of Mark chapter 14, Jesus calls the wine 'the fruit of the vine,' when according to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, it had been turned into blood and hence not wine at all." On pages 738-741 of Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, by E. W. Bullinger, in commenting on Matthew 26:26, he writes: "So in the very words that follow 'this is (i.e., represents or signifies) my body,' we have an undoubted Metaphor. 'He took the cup...saying...this is my blood.' Here, thus, we have a pair of metaphors.“ Let us now examine the Roman Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation in light of the scriptures. In so doing, we will see that this doctrine is utterly false for the following reasons: This doctrine destroys the nature of the institution as set forth by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29. The Lord's Supper is a memorial, a "sign" of something signified. The false doctrine of Transubstantiation destroys the memorial and the "sign." Jesus had not yet been crucified when He instituted the Lord’s Supper. Claiming that the bread becomes the literal body of the Lord, and the fruit of the vine becomes His literal blood, "takes away the memorial and the sign and puts the object commemorated, or the thing signified, in its place." (Bulwarks of the Faith, by Foy E. Wallace, p-186) Did Jesus take His own flesh and blood and give it to the apostles? Since He was present with them, such a thing is not plausible. His very presence makes it both improbable and impossible. So, the elements (the bread and fruit of the vine) of the memorial supper are the same now as they were then. The false doctrine of Transubstantiation is contrary to Bible language. Remember, the supporters of this doctrine often argue: "He [Christ] didn’t say it's a representation of his body and blood." So, we will now apply this faulty "reasoning" to other of Christ’s statements found in the Scriptures and see how they weigh: When Jesus said, "I am the bread," (John 6:41) did He mean literal bread? Remember, as argued by supporters of this doctrine, He didn’t say, “I am a representation of bread.” When Jesus said, "I am the vine," (John 15:5) was He a literal vine? He didn’t say, “I am a representation of a vine.” Therefore, if Christ was a literal vine, then His disciples had to be literal branches, because He said, “I am the vine, ye are the branches." When Jesus said, "I am the door," (John 10:7,9) was He a literal door? He didn’t say, “I am a representation of a door." When Jesus said, "I am the good shepherd,"(John 10:11,12) was He a literal shepherd? He didn’t say, “I am a representation of a shepherd." We might also ask, were the "sheep," the "shepherd," and the "wolf" mentioned in these verses literal or figurative? When Jesus taught, in Matthew 5:13-14, "Ye are the light of the world," did He mean the disciples were literal lights? If so, I wonder what kind--candles, lamps, torches, etc. Remember, He didn’t say, “Ye are a representation of light." When Jesus said, "Ye are the salt of the earth," did He mean they were table salt, rock salt, kosher salt, or block salt? Which? Let them tell us. Remember, He didn’t say, “Ye are a representation of salt." By using Catholicism’s own faulty "reasoning," it is easy to show the foolishness and fallacy of such quibbles. In the passages cited above, Jesus used figures of speech (metaphors) in His teachings, just as He did when He instituted the memorial supper. The false doctrine of Transubstantiation is contrary to science. If, after a Catholic priest blessed the bread and the fruit of the vine, a qualified scientist analyzed them, what would be the outcome? Would the scientist agree that the bread and fruit of the vine are the literal human flesh and blood of Jesus? Or, would the test show it to be bread and the fruit of the vine? Catholic theologians speak of the "Real Presence," but the Lord Himself, and the apostle Paul, commanded Christians to partake of the bread and the fruit of the vine "in remembrance of me." (Luke 22: 19; 1 Corinthians 11:24) When Jesus took the cup and said to His disciples, "drink ye all of it," was He referring to the literal cup or the contents of the cup (the fruit of the vine)? Remember, He didn’t say “this cup is a representation of the fruit of the vine." So, according to Catholic reasoning, Jesus meant for them to drink the literal cup! Now wouldn't that be hard to swallow, literally? Source of the above article: http://www.knollwoodchurch.org/yr2003/d08_transubstantiation.html Steve
6/8/2015 6:22:42 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 63, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Because a girl somewhere has celiac disease. the bread and wine don't turn into the Body and Blood of Christ. How does that prove that? You had never heard of the Holy Eucharist until recently, but now you are hardening your heart against It, Steve. Unwise . Unwise indeed. "If today you hear His voice, harden not your heart."
6/8/2015 7:00:09 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
tnteacher101 Morristown, TN 66, joined Aug. 2010	Quote from ludlowlowell: Because a girl somewhere has celiac disease. the bread and wine don't turn into the Body and Blood of Christ. How does that prove that? You had never heard of the Holy Eucharist until recently, but now you are hardening your heart against It, Steve. Unwise . Unwise indeed. "If today you hear His voice, harden not your heart." Low: It is my honest opinion that the Catholic Church has been "in error" on a lot of what they have taught for a very long time, for hundreds of years. In the past they had so much authority and power that if anyone disagreed with them they would simply say they were a heretic and execute them, often by burning them at the stake. That is not Yahweh's way of doing things. The way they killed millions and millions of people should prove to you that they have been "in error" for a very long time. I feel you need to break away from the dark cloud of deceit they have you chained/covered with and come into the light of Yeshua's True Way. The above article continued: In order to prove this doctrine false, it is not necessary to cite scholars, although I did. But I did so to show that bringing up what some unidentified "scholar" says, carries no weight. All we have to do is go to the scriptures to see the true meaning. In Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25, and Luke 22:18, Jesus spoke of the "cup" as being the "fruit of the vine," or the cup’s contents. In Matthew 26:29, Jesus said, "ButI say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." These verses show that He commanded His disciples to drink, not His literal blood, but the "fruit of the vine." When Paul wrote the Corinthians concerning their abuse of the Lord's Supper, he said they were to "eat this bread, and drink this cup." (1 Corinthians 11:26, cf. vs. 27,28). According to Catholic doctrine, Paul should have commanded them to "eat of His flesh and drink of His blood." The false Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation violates the Scriptures by withholding the cup. In 1415, the Council of Constance decreed that only the bread should be administered to the people, and that the priest should drink the wine for the people. This practice is contrary to divine scripture. Reread 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 and the gospel accounts. Paul commanded, "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup." Nowhere does it imply that anyone was to feed them the bread or drink the fruit of the vine for them! When Jesus instituted this supper, in His own memory, He commanded them ALL to partake of it, saying, "drink ye all of it." (Matthew 26:26) Mark says that Jesus "gave it to them: and they all drank of it." (Mark 14:22-23) Compare the order in which they partook of the Lord's Supper, as revealed in the scriptures, with the Catholic tradition--a priest takes a small cracker or wafer and puts it on the recipient’s tongue (an unsanitary practice); then, the priest drinks the fruit of the vine for those who are present. Is this partaking of the memorial supper or being fed only the bread portion of the "supper?" The Bible teaches that the first-century disciples met on the "first day of the week" to "break bread," implying that all partook of both elements of the memorial supper (Acts 20:7; Acts 2:42; Matthew 26:26-29; 1 Corinthians 10:16). This unscriptural Catholic tradition disgraces the Divine memorial that Christ instituted! The false Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation was not declared a Roman Catholic Article of Faith until 1215 A.D., by the Fourth Lateran Council! This is almost 1200 years AFTER the Lord's church was established. I wonder why, if they believed and practiced this doctrine, all of the "infallible" popes (who claim to speak ex cathedra) during the time period before 1200 A.D. didn't declare Transubstantiation an Article of Faith? The Catholic false doctrine of Transubstantiation violates the commands of divine Scripture found in Acts 15:6-30. The Gentile disciples were commanded to "abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication and from things strangled, and from blood." (Acts 15:20,29) So, according to this false doctrine, Jesus commanded what His inspired apostles forbade, thus pitting scripture against scripture. Finally, this false doctrine is in the "another gospel" category. Of the Galatians, the apostle Paul wrote, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:6-9) Nowhere in Scripture do we find the words/phrases, "Transubstantiation," "Holy Eucharist," or "Real Presence." Therefore, this false doctrine is not from Heaven, but of men (Matthew 21:23-27)! When this doctrine is tried and tested against scripture, it fails the test. He who teaches this false doctrine, "hath not God" and is "accursed" (2 John 9; Galatians 6:9)! And, "he that biddeth him [them] God speed is partaker of his [their] evil deeds." (2 John 10,11) [Note:] In recent years, the Roman Catholic church has changed their practice and they now provide the wine to all participants. This does not in any way diminish brother McClure's argument. [MEH] “And when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me. In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes.” [1 Corinthians 11:24-26] The Lord’s Supper is the only memorial ordained by God— It is for EVERY Christian—not just the clergy! Again the source of this article: http://www.knollwoodchurch.org/yr2003/d08_transubstantiation.html Steve
6/8/2015 7:22:17 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 63, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	The Catholic Church did not execute millions. According to the Wikipedia article on the subject, only about 6000 people were executed by the Inquisition. Nazis and Communists kill millions, not Catholics. During the Middle Ages heretics would do things like burning Catholics' crops or poisonong Catholics' wells, and the Inquisition was a form of self defense. When the priest quotes Jesus and says "This is my body" the bread miraculously changes into Jesus' Body, and when the priest quotes Jesus and says "This is my blood" the wine miraculously changes into Jesus' Blood", although these things are imperciptible to the senses. We have to believe it on faith, on Jesus' word for it. That makes it even more beautiful.
6/8/2015 7:43:35 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
tnteacher101 Morristown, TN 66, joined Aug. 2010	Quote from ludlowlowell: The Catholic Church did not execute millions. According to the Wikipedia article on the subject, only about 6000 people were executed by the Inquisition. Nazis and Communists kill millions, not Catholics. During the Middle Ages heretics would do things like burning Catholics' crops or poisonong Catholics' wells, and the Inquisition was a form of self defense. When the priest quotes Jesus and says "This is my body" the bread miraculously changes into Jesus' Body, and when the priest quotes Jesus and says "This is my blood" the wine miraculously changes into Jesus' Blood", although these things are imperciptible to the senses. We have to believe it on faith, on Jesus' word for it. That makes it even more beautiful. Low: The Catholic Church represented by Columbus and his evil group of heathen bandits/criminals/murderers/rape mongers invaded the natives of South and North America and without hesitation or regret brutilized and murdered millions and millions of helpless and innocent people. If you would read a few simple history lessons I am sure you could see it for yourself. A Catholic that changed his mind about the Transubstantiation. Here is his story: "How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."-Matthew 16:11-12 In the year 1215 A.D. the Pope Innocent III decreed the doctrine of transubstantiation. This is the doctrine that states the priest has the ability to perform the miracle of changing the wafer into the body of Jesus Christ for all Catholics to receive as communion. Five years later in 1220 A.D. Pope Honorius sanctioned the adoration of the wafer as doctrine. Luke 22:19,20 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. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you These are two verses that have indeed been taken out of context. As a devoted Catholic, I actually believed that the priest had that ability to change the wafer into the body of Jesus every single time I went to mass. Many people from all other churches have time and time again tried to explain to me that Jesus was speaking in a symbolic way when He said the bread was His flesh, and the wine was His blood. But I would have no part of their explanation. Even though I read John 6:35 about how "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..." I realized Jesus was saying He was the meaning of life. But I quickly blew that off because I didn't want to believe that my church was wrong. It would mean that Jesus wasn't really asking us to eat Him as a cannibal eats his prey. However, reading John 1:14 makes one realize that, "...the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,..." So when Jesus said we must eat His flesh, He actually meant,We must eat His Word. But I was still confused. It wasn't until I read Jeremiah 15:16 that I understood, "Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart..." It was also confirmed to my heart when I read these verses... Revelation 10:8-9, "And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth. And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey." Ezekiel 2:8-9, "But thou, son of man, hear what I say unto thee; Be not thou rebellious like that rebellious house: open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee. And when I looked, behold, an hand was sent unto me; and, lo, a roll of a book was therein;" Ezekiel 3:1-3, "Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel. So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll. And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness." Psalms 119:103, "How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!" Hebrews 6:5, "And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come," Psalms 34:8, "O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him." 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: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts." Source of this article: http://www.remnantofgod.org/WithHim.htm Steve
6/8/2015 8:02:04 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 63, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Columbus did not kill millions. Columbus and his men brought diseases the natives had no natural iimmunity for, but how was he supposed to know that ahead of time? Jesus present in the Holy Eucharist is a wonderful beautiful thing. You just don't know, Steve, you just don't know.
6/8/2015 8:08:14 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
tnteacher101 Morristown, TN 66, joined Aug. 2010	Quote from ludlowlowell: Columbus did not kill millions. Columbus and his men brought diseases the natives had no natural iimmunity for, but how was he supposed to know that ahead of time? Jesus present in the Holy Eucharist is a wonderful beautiful thing. You just don't know, Steve, you just don't know. Low: You may or may not be interested in reading this: How many people died because of Christopher Columbus (either directly by his hand or by the conquests led by him)? Want Answers20 3 ANSWERSASK TO ANSWER Rupert Baines Rupert Baines, Interested in history. Eclectic opini... (more) 35 upvotes by James Martin, Andy Lemke, Quora User, Ben Mordecai, (more) Under his direct leadership & responsibility (as Captain and then as Governor) several hundred thousand, and probably over a million people were killed in a major act of genocide. Others followed him and killed even more (Cortes, Pizarro etc), but he did his share. He was not just some innocent mariner: after his first voyage Columbus was appointed Viceroy and Governor of the Indies and directly ruled the territories from 1494 to 1500. He created work camps (where Indians were worked to death in as ghastly a manner as anyone in 20th century), led the troops, established slavery & mines This is all a matter of record: 15th/16th century is not pre-history, and the Spaniards recorded all of this. Bartholome de las Casas was a monk who wrote it in detail. In just two years under Columbus Governorship through murder, mutilation, being worked to death or suicide more than half the 250,000 Indians in Haiiti were dead - Howard Zinn "Haiti under the Spanish is one of the primary instances of genocide in Human history" "Columbus not only sent the first slaves acroiss the Atlantic, he sent more slaves than any other individual" - James Loewen Bartlome de Las Casas says: There were 60,000 people living on this island [in 1508], including both Spaniards & Indians. So that between 1494 and 1508 more than three million people died from war, slavery and the mines. Who in future generations will believe this? I myself as an eyewitness can scarce believe it Even if his figures were exaggerations (were there 3 million as he says, or only a million as some historians calculate, or as many as 8 million as some others now believe) it is undeniably true that Columbus over those 6 years was responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people. It is a quite remarkable fact that this is so little known. Howard Zinn has a long discussion on this. Much of the quotes above come from James Lowen, "Lies my Teacher Told Me" who discusses quite why it is even knows the myth and so few people know the historical truth. Smallpox was indeed as massive killer in South America, but is a slight red herring: the first outbreak was in 1516 Source of the article: http://www.quora.com/How-many-people-died-because-of-Christopher-Columbus-either-directly-by-his-hand-or-by-the-conquests-led-by-him Steve
6/8/2015 8:38:27 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
louie6332 Falkville, AL 74, joined Nov. 2011	Tnt, you say: “Christ’s body cannot be at more than one place at a time, much less at millions of places across the world every Sunday during Mass.” Steve, that is presumption. Have you ever heard of “bi-location”? More than a few saints in the Catholic Church bi-located, appearing in two or more places at once doing different things, in laces separated by thousands of miles in some cases. According to American Indian legends, Christ himself is said to have bi-located and preached to the American Indian tribes before his public mission in the Holy Land began, they referred to him as the great white God, whom they expected to return one day. Bi-location is a miraculous event that is recorded in the annals of the saints throughout the history of the Church. Tnt, can you eat bread and drink wine unworthily? No, of course not. Good and bad alike eat and drink without committing sin, for eating and drinking is not against God’s law. Can you eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood unworthily? Yes, if you eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ while in a state of mortal sin, “you eat and drink to your damnation”, that's what the Bible says. If you are a “Bible believing Christian”, you will believe that, because that is what your sole authority, the Bible, literally says, and that if what Christ and his twelve said. You can do a test if you like, take an unconsecrated Host and a consecrated host from a Catholic Mass and examine it. Ordinary people cannot tell the different since they both have the appearance of bread and wine. But certain saints can, and Satan can. How do you account for that? And how do you account for the fact that unconsecrated hosts rot, while consecrated hosts do not rot? The consecrated bread and wine is miraculously transformed into the body and blood of Christ while retaining the appearances of bread and wine. If you were to test it, you would see the appearances. Lud, if turning water into wine is a miracle, then turning wine into blood is also a miracle. And blood under the appearance of wine is also a miracle. Tnt, if the consecrated bread and wine retained the appearance of flesh and blood, it would be unpalatable. Bread and wine, on the other hand, are palatable. Flesh and blood under the appearance of bread and wine is far more palatable than flesh and blood under the appearance and taste of raw flesh and raw blood. If you are a vampire, you may not agree with this, but I think most normal civilized people would agree with it. We don’t want communicants gagging when they receive the flesh of Christ. I have not seen what I state here stated in the revelations, but it’s my opinion. This may play a part in why God retains the appearances of bread and wine. He may also be testing our faith. I remember there was a case in which a priest doubted the transubstantiation while saying Mass--until the Sacred Host began to bleed real human blood right there in his hands. After that he doubted no more. I have also pointed out to you Tnt, the existence of the Eucharistic miracles that have occurred, in which the Consecrated Host and Consecrated Wine took the appearance of flesh and blood, and which were tested to be human heart tissue and human blood, type AB, and which are kept in Catholic churches around the world as sacred relics. You seemed shocked by this, but then you just sloughed it off. One has to be an validly ordained priest to perform the miracle of transubstantiation by the way. There is no instance in which the Last Supper commemoration bread in a Protestant worship service has taken the appearance of flesh. None. That’s a subtle sign to all men of good will. Most men, as they go through life, observe subtle signs, subtle miracles. Some take them to heart, others just ignore them and go on (I could tell you stories, but not now). Tnt, you pretend that the Catholic Church made up the doctrine of transubstantiation, but they are just taking what Christ and his apostles said literally. If anybody made it up, it was Christ and his Apostles that made it up. If what the Catholic Church says in this case is false, as you would have us believe, and as you desperately WANT to believe, then what Christ said is false. There is no way around it. And as Lud has correctly pointed out, transubstantiation was the belief of the twelve and the early Church fathers, that’s a matter of historical record, you can't just ignore that simply because you don't want to believe it. And both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church hold to his doctrine, and have from the time of Christ--and no, Paul did not make it up, Paul did not put words in the mouth of Christ, if anybody put words in anybody's mouth, Christ put words in his mouth in this case. Paul spoke the truth in this case. You are only pretending to be following Christ if you do not take him literally. And this doctrine of transubstantiation, as you call it, has been confirmed by Christ himself over the centuries through the prophets he sends to his Gentile Church, the Catholic prophets. Louie
6/8/2015 9:22:51 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
share_n_love Fort Wayne, IN 60, joined Dec. 2012	Quote from tnteacher101: Share: I would think that sad story should be more than enough to prove that the bread and wine is simply not turned into the real Flesh and Blood of Christ. Let's see if any of the Catholic Followers on this site come forward and admit that they have been totally wrong all along. It takes a big person to admit it when that person finally realizes that they are wrong. Share: The person that wrote the article below explains why the Catholics believe the way they do on the Eucharist. Here is part of the article: Why does the Roman Catholic Church Interpret John 6:53-54 Literally? It is a grave error to teach that Jesus was literally saying to receive forgiveness one must literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. The question one must try to determine why such a blatant misinterpretation was made. The reason is seen in that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that it is the sole means of a person receiving salvation. This has given the Roman Catholic Church and their Pope at great power over their people. Anyone who is not baptized, is not a member in good standing of the Roman church, and do not receives its sacraments are outside God's grace and must come to the Roman Church for redemption. The Lation phrase "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" is their historic doctrine and means "outside the church there is no salvation. An example of this is seen in that their church can withhold the Eucharist from a member the church or even a whole nation, and according to their teaching, withholding the grace of God and for giveness of sin from those people. 4 The Roman church practices excommunication in which it denies the sacarments to those who commit grave sins. This means the offender cannot receive the sacraments and those are denied God's mercy and grace. This gave the Pope and the Roman Church great power to force its will on people, and even nations through the practice of the "Anathema." During the Middle Ages Roman used excommunication and the denial of the Mass and the Eucharist to obtain political power over the kings and rulers of Europe. Source of the above: http://bible-truth.org/Eucharist.html Steve I agree with this person which makes Yahshua's statement even more of a profound warning... This reminds me of what Yahshua said in Mt, Mk, and Lk. Ty for sharing this... But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
6/8/2015 9:25:44 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 63, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Louie is right down the line correct this time, except that consevrated Hosts can rot. If It does, It is no longer a Eucharistic Host, that is, if It completely rots away. Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes right before He started talking about the Eucharist in the sixth chapter of John to show that His Eucharisted could indeed be bi-located, tri-located, and multi-located all over the world. Christopher Columbus was not a saint, I admit. But how does that have anything to do with Jesus Christ present in the Holy Eucharist? [Edited 6/8/2015 9:26:44 PM ]
6/8/2015 9:33:01 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 63, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Steve, you started this thread by stating five reasons that you reject the doctrine of substantiation. I've got five better reasons why you should accept it: 1. Jesus loves you and wants to be united with you in this way. 2. Jesus loves you and wants to be united with you in this way. 3. Jesus loves you and wants to be united with you in this way. 4. Jesus loves you and wants to be united with you in this way. 5. Jesus loves you and wants to be united with you in this way.
6/8/2015 9:36:15 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
share_n_love Fort Wayne, IN 60, joined Dec. 2012	Quote from tnteacher101: Share: This is another article that should give more than enough proof that anyone would need to dispell the myth of Transubstantiation. Here it is: Why the Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation Is False! By Glendol McClure Excellent and very relative article Steve...Ty. Another Messianic friend once stated when this subject came up at a discussion said, If it wasn't a metaphor then the bread & wine He handed them would have ended any one else from eternal life after it was consumed by the Disciples. Also, NO where in His statement to them at the Lord's Supper did He say another had the ability to 'change' this bread & wine into HIS body and blood once He was gone. So again, if the Eucharist is actually His body and blood....the Disciples would be the ONLY ones who would have inherited eternal life. What a shame they cannot understand it is a metaphor...
6/8/2015 9:38:33 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
tnteacher101 Morristown, TN 66, joined Aug. 2010	Quote from ludlowlowell: Louie is right down the line correct this time, except that consevrated Hosts can rot. If It does, It is no longer a Eucharistic Host, that is, if It completely rots away. Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes right before He started talking about the Eucharist in the sixth chapter of John to show that His Eucharisted could indeed be bi-located, tri-located, and multi-located all over the world. Christopher Columbus was not a saint, I admit. But how does that have anything to do with Jesus Christ present in the Holy Eucharist? Low: You appear to be saying in your past posts that the people of the Catholic Church are the only people that follows Yahweh and that they are approved by Yahweh as Believers and are saved from Hades. I used Columbus as a very good example of a practicing Catholic that was as mean as any man in the world and has done more damage to mankind than anyone I know of except maybe Hitler. Anyone that is said to be a chosen Vessel of Yahweh and is that deceitful and mean shows something is extremely wrong with his beliefs and I would think that the church that produced such an evil person would have to be credited as being part of the problem. Steve
6/8/2015 9:41:12 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 63, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	When Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me" He gave the apostles, His first priests, the power to do what He had just done---change bread and wine into Jesus' Precious Body and Blood. Metaphor, you say? "My body is real food and my blood real drink." --Jesus (John 6:56) [Edited 6/8/2015 9:42:46 PM ]
6/8/2015 9:44:30 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
share_n_love Fort Wayne, IN 60, joined Dec. 2012	Well Lud, even from THAT point of view the Disciples would have been the only 'saved' humans.
6/8/2015 9:46:13 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 63, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Steve, instead of going by the bad Catholic example Christopher Columbus, why don't you go by the good Catholic example St. Peter Claver? Look him up.
6/8/2015 10:25:30 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
tnteacher101 Morristown, TN 66, joined Aug. 2010	Quote from ludlowlowell: Steve, instead of going by the bad Catholic example Christopher Columbus, why don't you go by the good Catholic example St. Peter Claver? Look him up. I have been busy tonight and plan to respond to what Louie wrote maybe tomorrow. Low: I will look Peter Claver up and read about him. I know in all religions some people are more than bad people. But, Columbus acted as a representive of the Catholic Church in his voyage to South and North America and he set a very bad example as a Catholic representive. Steve
6/9/2015 10:23:50 AM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
tnteacher101 Morristown, TN 66, joined Aug. 2010	Louie wrote: Tnt, you say: “Christ’s body cannot be at more than one place at a time, much less at millions of places across the world every Sunday during Mass.” Steve, that is presumption. Have you ever heard of “bi-location”? More than a few saints in the Catholic Church bi-located, appearing in two or more places at once doing different things, in laces separated by thousands of miles in some cases. According to American Indian legends, Christ himself is said to have bi-located and preached to the American Indian tribes before his public mission in the Holy Land began, they referred to him as the great white God, whom they expected to return one day. Bi-location is a miraculous event that is recorded in the annals of the saints throughout the history of the Church. Louie: I certainly don't remmeber saying that but one of my postings could have had that in it's content. I believe Yahweh can do anything He wants to do and that includes being in multiple places at one time. I believe His Presence can be anywhere and everwhere He desires at the same exact time. Louie wrote: Tnt, can you eat bread and drink wine unworthily? No, of course not. Good and bad alike eat and drink without committing sin, for eating and drinking is not against God’s law. Can you eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood unworthily? Yes, if you eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ while in a state of mortal sin, “you eat and drink to your damnation”, that's what the Bible says. If you are a “Bible believing Christian”, you will believe that, because that is what your sole authority, the Bible, literally says, and that if what Christ and his twelve said. You can do a test if you like, take an unconsecrated Host and a consecrated host from a Catholic Mass and examine it. Ordinary people cannot tell the different since they both have the appearance of bread and wine. But certain saints can, and Satan can. How do you account for that? And how do you account for the fact that unconsecrated hosts rot, while consecrated hosts do not rot? The consecrated bread and wine is miraculously transformed into the body and blood of Christ while retaining the appearances of bread and wine. If you were to test it, you would see the appearances. Louie: It is my sincere belief that the bread of the Lord's Supper/Mass does not turn into the actual Flesh and Blood of Christ. I am not saying it is impossible because all things are possible, in my humble opinion, with Yahweh. But, throughout the Bible, like I mentioned before, when there was a miracle there was a "visible element change" in the thing or person that received the miracle. There were also witnesses that could plainly see the "change" that took place. Without the "element" and "physical/visible" change we are not doing anyone a favor by claiming that a miracle has happened. If we claim that a miracle has happened with out visible proof then we will cast a shadow on ourselves and the church that we represent. I do not fault the Catholic People for believing that the bread and wine change because those church memebers have been told this miracle happens by their superiors of the church and you are meekly going along and taking their word for it. I find your ability to believe and accept what you cannot see as an honorable thing and not as a weakness or flaw in your character. Louie wrote: Tnt, if the consecrated bread and wine retained the appearance of flesh and blood, it would be unpalatable. Bread and wine, on the other hand, are palatable. Flesh and blood under the appearance of bread and wine is far more palatable than flesh and blood under the appearance and taste of raw flesh and raw blood. If you are a vampire, you may not agree with this, but I think most normal civilized people would agree with it. We don’t want communicants gagging when they receive the flesh of Christ. I have not seen what I state here stated in the revelations, but it’s my opinion. This may play a part in why God retains the appearances of bread and wine. He may also be testing our faith. Louie: I agree with what you said in the above paragraph. Louie wrote: I remember there was a case in which a priest doubted the transubstantiation while saying Mass--until the Sacred Host began to bleed real human blood right there in his hands. After that he doubted no more. I have also pointed out to you Tnt, the existence of the Eucharistic miracles that have occurred, in which the Consecrated Host and Consecrated Wine took the appearance of flesh and blood, and which were tested to be human heart tissue and human blood, type AB, and which are kept in Catholic churches around the world as sacred relics. You seemed shocked by this, but then you just sloughed it off. One has to be an validly ordained priest to perform the miracle of transubstantiation by the way. There is no instance in which the Last Supper commemoration bread in a Protestant worship service has taken the appearance of flesh. None. That’s a subtle sign to all men of good will. Most men, as they go through life, observe subtle signs, subtle miracles. Some take them to heart, others just ignore them and go on (I could tell you stories, but not now). Louie: I am well aware that sometimes people get caught up in the moment and imagine things that are simply not there. Some people want something to be true to the point that some will start speaking in tongues, some will walk on top of the church pews, some will take up serpents and not be harmed. As far as saying one must be an ordained Priest to perform certain miracles I think that may be giving too much authority and putting too much trust in the title of a man. I think Yahweh gives His Blessings freely and people don't necessarily have to have some silly man made title to be able to be special in the sight of Yahweh. We are all special and Yahweh can and sometimes will bless us as He sees fit. Louie wrote: Tnt, you pretend that the Catholic Church made up the doctrine of transubstantiation, but they are just taking what Christ and his apostles said literally. If anybody made it up, it was Christ and his Apostles that made it up. If what the Catholic Church says in this case is false, as you would have us believe, and as you desperately WANT to believe, then what Christ said is false. There is no way around it. And as Lud has correctly pointed out, transubstantiation was the belief of the twelve and the early Church fathers, that’s a matter of historical record, you can't just ignore that simply because you don't want to believe it. And both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church hold to his doctrine, and have from the time of Christ--and no, Paul did not make it up, Paul did not put words in the mouth of Christ, if anybody put words in anybody's mouth, Christ put words in his mouth in this case. Paul spoke the truth in this case. You are only pretending to be following Christ if you do not take him literally. And this doctrine of transubstantiation, as you call it, has been confirmed by Christ himself over the centuries through the prophets he sends to his Gentile Church, the Catholic prophets. To be continued! Steve
6/9/2015 5:09:00 PM	The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is False!
louie6332 Falkville, AL 74, joined Nov. 2011	Share, you say: “Nowhere in His statement to them at the Lord's Supper did He say another had the ability to 'change' this bread & wine into HIS body and blood once He was gone.” Well Share, as Lud has already correctly pointed out, he ordered his apostles to do what he had done. And a few weeks after Pentecost Peter, exercising the authority that Our Lord has given him to loose and to bind, proclaimed that Christians, would, henceforth, observe the Lord Day on Sunday instead of Saturday, and that they would offer up on that day, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the body and blood of Christ, instead of the animal and cereal offerings of the Jews. And so it was for Christians from that point forward. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has been offered up by the Church on Catholic altars since the beginning. Louie

free hookup sites 2018

megapersonal com sign up