Question for those who believe Transubstantiation

[Stravinsk]

I have simple question for those who believe in Transubstantiation:

At the last supper - before Christ's body had endured one affront to it, before one drop of blood had been shed, He declared to the disciples:

Matthew 26:26-28
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins

So if Christ declared mere bread and wine to be His body and blood - when his body had NOT yet been broken, and His blood had NOT yet been shed -

How do you take this? What were the disciples eating and drinking?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I have simple question for those who believe in Transubstantiation:

At the last supper - before Christ's body had endured one affront to it, before one drop of blood had been shed, He declared to the disciples:

Matthew 26:26-28
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins

So if Christ declared mere bread and wine to be His body and blood - when his body had NOT yet been broken, and His blood had NOT yet been shed -

How do you take this? What were the disciples eating and drinking?

I can see what you mean Stravinsk but I do not see its relevance. The last supper bread & wine are declared by Jesus to be his body & blood. Faith's response is to believe him. John 6 presents Jesus' declaration at greater length than Matthew 26:26-28. John 6 tells the reader that unless one eats Jesus' flesh and drinks Jesus' blood he/she has no life in them and that if one eats Jesus' flesh and drinks Jesus' blood then he has eternal life. No materialist line of argument will explain the words of Jesus. Those who were offended at the idea of eating Jesus' flesh and drinking Jesus' blood walked away from him after he said those things.

 

[Stravinsk]

I can see what you mean Stravinsk but I do not see its relevance. The last supper bread & wine are declared by Jesus to be his body & blood. Faith's response is to believe him. John 6 presents Jesus' declaration at greater length than Matthew 26:26-28. John 6 tells the reader that unless one eats Jesus' flesh and drinks Jesus' blood he/she has no life in them and that if one eats Jesus' flesh and drinks Jesus' blood then he has eternal life. No materialist line of argument will explain the words of Jesus. Those who were offended at the idea of eating Jesus' flesh and drinking Jesus' blood walked away from him after he said those things.

By this line of reasoning, Christ also descended from heaven as a piece of mana bread (in the same teaching in John 6) - and if someone argues that - I can say it's literal because Christ says He did and to think otherwise is 'materialist'.

But no one believes this - or am I mistaken? Does Jesus descending from Heaven as Mana bread a figurative statement because otherwise it's ridiculous but eating a broken body and drinking blood that hasn't been spilled yet perfectly fine because it's a matter of interpretive doctrine?

I'd have a problem with drinking blood and eating flesh as well - ugh - Biblical law even forbids it!

But Christ does give this qualifier: John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Why declare that "the flesh profiteth nothing" when He just said one must eat His flesh to have eternal life??

 

[MoreCoffee]

By this line of reasoning, Christ also descended from heaven as a piece of mana bread (in the same teaching in John 6) - and if someone argues that - I can say it's literal because Christ says He did and to think otherwise is 'materialist'.

Jesus is the true manna from heaven as he himself said. The manna that the Israelites ate in the wilderness was a metaphor of Christ by which I mean that Jesus is the reality and the manna is the shadow/symbol. So yes Jesus is the true manna from heaven and he did descend from heaven to feed the faithful. If anybody argues that the true manna was what fell in the wilderness and that Jesus spoke of himself as being metaphorically like the true (and original) manna from heaven that fell in the wilderness for the people of Israel to eat then he is indeed become a materialist in his thinking.

But no one believes this - or am I mistaken?

You are mistaken.

Does Jesus descending from Heaven as Mana bread a figurative statement because otherwise it's ridiculous but eating a broken body and drinking blood that hasn't been spilled yet perfectly fine because it's a matter of interpretive doctrine?

I'd have a problem with drinking blood and eating flesh as well - ugh - Biblical law even forbids it!

If anybody thinks of him/her self as under the law that forbids drinking blood then the gospel is not of much use to him/her because the moment he/she declares him/her self as under the law he/she also declares him/her self as apart from Christ because the faithful in Christ are not under the law but under grace. And if anybody says that they are under one law then they are under them all because it is the same God who gave the one that such a person says they are under that also gave all the other laws. This is the argument that Paul and James present in their letters. What you make of it is up to you. John in his gospel simply tells us what Jesus said about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." John 6:47-51 ...
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." John 6:53-58​

But Christ does give this qualifier: John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Why declare that "the flesh profiteth nothing" when He just said one must eat His flesh to have eternal life??

"It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe. ... This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." John 6:63-65

The spirit gives life is what Jesus said. He did not say "spiritualising my words is what gives life". The spirit to whom Jesus referred is the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit that gives life and that is why the flesh (human flesh) is of no avail.

 

[Stravinsk]

Jesus is the true manna from heaven as he himself said. The manna that the Israelites ate in the wilderness was a metaphor of Christ by which I mean that Jesus is the reality and the manna is the shadow/symbol. So yes Jesus is the true manna from heaven and he did descend from heaven to feed the faithful. If anybody argues that the true manna was what fell in the wilderness and that Jesus spoke of himself as being metaphorically like the true (and original) manna from heaven that fell in the wilderness for the people of Israel to eat then he is indeed become a materialist in his thinking.

You are mistaken.

Since we are talking *substance* here - then what you are saying is that Jesus physically (in substance) descended from Heaven as Mana then somehow entered Mary's womb and changed to a human?

Please be clear. Persons who believe in literal blood and flesh/wine, bread have this verse to contend with - for it is contained in the same teaching.

If anybody thinks of him/her self as under the law the forbids drinking blood then the gospel is not of much use to him/her because the moment he/she declare him/her self as under the law he/she also declare him/her self as apart from Christ because the faithful in Christ are not under the law but under grace. And if anybody says that they are under one law then they are under them all because it is the same God who gave the one that such a person says they are under that also gave all the others. This is the argument that Paul and James present in their letters.

No, just Saul/Paul if memory serves - not James. Besides, not eating blood is a very good teaching - as we can get super sick eating raw meat with blood in it! I would challenge every believer to eat some raw chicken and then repeat the verse you just quoted, and to make sure they have faith that it isn't going to hurt them - just because of that verse.

I'll win every time - they won't eat it, and if they do, they'll get sick.

What you make of it is up to you. John n his gospel simply tells us what Jesus said about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." John 6:47-51 ...
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." John 6:53-58​

"It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe. ... This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." John 6:63-65

The spirit gives life is what Jesus said. He did not say "spiritualising my words is what gives life". The spirit to whom Jesus referred is the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit that gives life and that is why the flesh (human flesh) is of no avail.

Last I looked, merely repeating what Yeshua taught is not "spiritualising" His words. He said the flesh (the very subject just being discussed in the preceding verses) "profitith nothing". If you want to say (human flesh) is of no avail - I agree! So will you now argue that Christ did not have human flesh?

Careful here, sir. A big heresy awaits for the wrong answer.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Since we are talking *substance* here - then what you are saying is that Jesus physically (in substance) descended from Heaven as Mana then somehow entered Mary's womb and changed to a human?

Please be clear. Persons who believe in literal blood and flesh/wine, bread have this verse to contend with - for it is contained in the same teaching.

Jesus says the "this is my body" so I believe him. Jesus says "this is my blood of the new covenant" so I believe him. How the bread is his body I do not claim to know. It is a matter of faith to believe Jesus. It does not require scientific experimental confirmation. I do not expect the bread to yield human DNA, human flesh, under scientific examination. My expectation is - based on experience - that scientific experiments will find wheat flour and water and maybe some salt or other additive. Similar comments apply to the wine.

No, just Saul/Paul if memory serves - not James.

James teaches that fulfilling the law requires all the law to be fulfilled. "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," said also, "Do not kill." If you do not commit adultery but do kill, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy; yet mercy triumphs over judgment." James 2:10-13

Besides, not eating blood is a very good teaching - as we can get super sick eating raw meat with blood in it! I would challenge every believer to eat some raw chicken and then repeat the verse you just quoted, and to make sure they have faith that it isn't going to hurt them - just because of that verse.

I'll win every time - they won't eat it, and if they do, they'll get sick.





Last I looked, merely repeating what Yeshua taught is not "spiritualising" His words. He said the flesh (the very subject just being discussed in the preceding verses) "profitith nothing". If you want to say (human flesh) is of no avail - I agree! So will you now argue that Christ did not have human flesh?

Careful here, sir. A big heresy awaits for the wrong answer.

Jesus said both that "it is the spirit that gives life" which does not mean "spiritualising my words gives life" and he also said "the flesh is of no value" which does not mean "my flesh is of no value".

 

[Stravinsk]

Jesus says the "this is my body" so I believe him. Jesus says "this is my blood of the new covenant" so I believe him. How the bread is his body I do not claim to know. It is a matter of faith to believe Jesus. It does not require scientific experimental confirmation. I do not expect the bread to yield human DNA, human flesh, under scientific examination. My expectation is - based on experience - that scientific experiments will find wheat flour and water and maybe some salt or other additive. Similar comments apply to the wine.

What you are saying here is that you really don't believe in transubstanciation. The bread remains bread, and the wine remains wine.

The words "This is my body"
"This is my blood"

are what is repeated for:

"Do this in remembrance of me"


When Christians celebrate the feast of Unleavened - as per Christ's example - then they do it remembering the sacrificial lamb every time the bread and wine * are consumed.

I know very few Christians celebrate the Feast of Unleavend - however - That is exactly how I would interpret these verses had I been a total newcomer to Christianity and hadn't been surrounded in Easter traditions and practices.

James teaches that fulfilling the law requires all the law to be fulfilled. "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," said also, "Do not kill." If you do not commit adultery but do kill, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy; yet mercy triumphs over judgment." James 2:10-13

This statement: "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it" - is an embedded untruth. People will probably get upset with that statement, but I stand by it. If I steal a loaf of bread worth $2 because I am hungry, this does not also make me guilty of 1st degree murder, adultery, coveting my neighbor's wife. It does include "not loving God", but it does not include the other things by default. So either James is in error in this verse, or your interpretation is in error. I'm going to side with your interpretation is in error, because last time I lied I certainly didn't also immediately become guilty of ending anyone else's life or committing adultery with someone else's wife.

Jesus said both that "it is the spirit that gives life" which does not mean "spiritualising my words gives life" and he also said "the flesh is of no value" which does not mean "my flesh is of no value".

You want to separate "flesh" from the context of the teaching. In that context what flesh is He saying they have to consume? HIS FLESH. He then says "the flesh profitith nothing" - now if He didn't say this in direct response to the balking of the teaching - then I'd say you have a point - but the fact is is that He DID use this term in direct explanation of the teaching the people were balking at.

*un-fermented as cannot be consumed fermented as ferments necessitate the use of yeast.