The Eucharist is unbiblical

[RJB]

One can only say 'Come and see!'

Agreed. God changed my atheistic heart.

[heavenlyboy34]

Agreed. God changed my atheistic heart.

+1 (though I was never atheist...I went from non-denom>>baptist>>non-denom>>deist>>non-denom>>orthodox over the course of ~30 years)

[heavenlyboy34]

They say it looks and tastes like wine and bread. If it's wine and bread under a microscope, it's still wine and bread.

Perhaps science will catch up one day. Nobody believed in or understood cells or atoms till they were discovered. It was all faith till then. Read up on science history sometime. Until the modern era, science and religion were extremely entwined in East and West alike. (Mendel came up with the name "cell" because what he examined looked like monks' cells to him!)

[jmdrake]

This is why internet discussions often times go nowhere. I would ask that we try to be more mature in our dialogue my friend. I don't think anyone put forward the proposition that Jesus has no idea what a metaphor is. I think we can hVe fruitful discussions without going to extremes.

As does any rational human being. Thank you for confirming it! However, you have yet proved your positions that Christ was using metaphors and was not being literal when He said:

TER, the only proof that you have that Jesus was not using a metaphor is if you take the position that He never used a metaphor. Sorry if my pointing out the obvious offends you. Yes Jesus said what you said He said. He also said the Pharisees were whitewashed tombs. It's interesting that the only way you can "rebut" my argument is to ignore the main point of it. Everyone knows that Jesus used a metaphor when talking about the Pharisees. Therefore logic bars you from using Jesus' words regarding His body and blood as being proof that He wasn't speaking metaphorically.

That is so sad, my friend, to hear you, a Christian, say, and in such a matter of fact way. How much you are missing! Your position regarding the Holy Eucharist puts you theologically (and maybe spiritually) at odds with every baptized Christian for the first 1600 years of the history of Christianity. And I am not exaggerating that. I can only hope one day you will come to know.

One can only say 'Come and see!'

No. What's sad is that once again you didn't even address what I said. I will repeat it. In some cases the priests officiating over the Eucharist have been extremely wicked people that will most likely burn in hell. I'm talking about child molesters and worse. So...what becomes of the Eucharist when a wicket priest presides over it? For the protestant that is not a problem. For the RCC and EO Christian it is.....? Do you think God let's the Holy Spirit pass through these unholy men to perform the miracle of the Eucharist anyway? Do you think that in those cases no miracle actually happens? I've brought this question up before and I don't recall you ever attempting to answer. If you have my apologies for forgetting.

[robert68]

This led to the one of the first great councils and indeed the first representative meeting of Christian hierarchs held in the western part of the Roman Empire in the year 313.

This council was the first one called by emperor Constantine, and below is quoted his letter to summon the meeting.
...

When the heavy hand of emperors and imperial politics decide things, you surely know the result will be the truth. That’s why we’re all here after all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism#Churches

[heavenlyboy34]

@jmdrake-
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/john6.html

Those Protestants who reject the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist will often allege that the John 6:35-68 meaning of eating the flesh and drinking blood actually is believing in Jesus Christ for salvation. As has been presented by these Protestants, that is the only way one could interpret Jesus saying one must Eat the Flesh and Drink the Blood. Some will show a parallel of John 6:35 with John 6:54 which at first glance, may seem to say that eating the flesh and believing are the same thing. Let us see whether this is a plausible explanation of Jesus, and eating flesh and drinking blood means believing:
First, Jesus in John 6:35 and 6:39 says:
35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.
39 and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day.

Then he writes:
54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Since John 6:35 talks of bread, hunger and thirsting, and since Jesus says that whoever believes (in v. 35) he will raise him up on the last day, Protestants (those who reject the real presence in the Eucharist) say the same language is used in reference to eating the flesh and drinking of blood Jesus will raise on the last day as well. Thus, the Catholics supposedly ignore this clear parallel. The fact that Jesus let people go away without him explaining that eating flesh means believing is supposedly OK, because he said some people's heart will be hardened, and for those there was no need to explain the truth to them (Mt. 13:13-15).

First Let us look at the texts when the Jews left over the flesh and blood statement.

John 6: 51 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."
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53 So Jesus said to them, "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;
54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Then after that statement Jesus does not retract this understanding but affirms it all the more even to the disciples:

56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
58 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."
59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper'naum.
60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"
61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?
62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
63 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.
64 But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." 66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
67 Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?"

The problem with the aforementioned Protestant idea is that Jesus always explained to the disciples what he meant. In fact, right after explaining that some are hardened of heart in his sayings (Mt. 13:13-15) he says to his disciples: Matthew 13:16 But blessed [are] your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear." Jesus always explained to the disciples what he meant. Mark 4:34 "But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples." Nowhere in John 6 did Jesus say, "don't take me literally, folks". Notice, Jesus ALWAYS explained things to the disciples. After speaking of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and people understanding him literally, the disciples took him literally as well (v. 60). According to the bible Jesus always explained to the disciples the meaning of his teachings. The context of John 6:51-67 shows that not only the Jews, but the disciples took him literally, and they left because of this understanding. In fact Jesus knew how they understood, did not correct their understanding, and let them leave him. This shows the literalness of his teaching that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood. There is no parallel elsewhere where Jesus let his disciples leave him w/o explaining what he really meant.

To those who hold that well, eating the flesh and drinking the blood is meant believing, because of the parallel of John 6:35, 39, and 54, let us examine that claim as well. It must be admitted that there is a figurative understanding of eating flesh and drinking blood. The question is, does this figurative understanding mean believe? Let us look at the Jewish understanding of figuratively eating flesh and drinking blood. It is something positive, no doubt, according to this Protestant BBS theory. Let us see whether in the bible, eating flesh is figuratively used in a positive way, believing, as must be, for this Protestant interpretation to hold up.

The Bible does mention "to eat someone's flesh" and "to drink someone's blood" symbolically, but in those passages, it means something completely different than Protestants want it to: it means to slander someone, to assault a person; to revile them (Micah 3:3, Psalm 27:2; Isaiah 9:18-20, for example). So, even if Jesus did speak symbolically, he would be saying, "You have to revile me to get to Heaven,", not a very plausible explanation. The passages themselves show it:

Psalm 27:2 When the WICKED CAME AGAINST ME to EAT UP MY FLESH, my ENEMIES AND FOES, they stumbled and fell.

Micah 3:1-4 - 1 And I said: Hear, you heads of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel! Is it not for you to know justice? 2 YOU WHO HATE THE GOOD AND LOVE THE EVIL, who tear the skin from off my people, and their flesh from off their bones; 3 who EAT THE FLESH OF MY PEOPLE, and flay their skin from off them, and break their bones in pieces, and chop them up like meat in a kettle, like flesh in a caldron. 4 Then they will cry to the LORD, but he will not answer them; he will hide his face from them at that time, because THEY HAVE MADE THEIR DEEDS EVIL.

Isaiah 9:18-20 - 18 For WICKEDNESS BURNS LIKE A FIRE, it consumes briers and thorns; it kindles the thickets of the forest, and they roll upward in a column of smoke. 19 Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts the land is burned, and the people are like fuel for the fire; no man spares his brother. 20 They snatch on the right, but are STILL HUNGRY, AND THEY DEVOUR ON THE LEFT, but are not satisfied; each devours his neighbor's flesh,

If the Protestant understanding that Jesus is being figurative is to be believed, we would have to say that in order to inherit eternal life, one must revile Jesus, and do evil deeds, and be wicked toward him. This makes no sense.

What about the fact that later Jesus says my words are spirit and life? Does that not mean symbolic? In fact there is not one time in the bible where spirit means symbolic. God is Spirit, he obviously is real and not symbolic. Surrounding vv. 6:61-65, Jesus says that the Son of Man will ascend into heaven. This is right before the words "My words are Spirit and Life". Do those Protestants who reject the Real Presence hold that Jesus symbolically or figuratively rose to heaven after his death? Or do they believe, with Catholics, that he literally bodily rose from the dead, not only by his power, (Jn 2:18), but by the power of the Spirit was made alive (1 Peter 3:18). How many bible believing Protestants believe that Jesus did not literally ascend into heaven? So they seem to take that part of the saying literally and the next verse make a symbol, just to avoid the overtones of Jesus' actual words. Honest exegesis requires consistency.

Notice back in vv. 51-52, it talks of him giving his flesh for the life of the world. This bread that he give is flesh. If one understands his flesh to be symbolic, he does away with that idea by saying that the same flesh will be given up on the cross. How many Protestants do not believe that Jesus literally gave his flesh on the cross? This flesh will be given to eat. If the flesh we eat for eternal life is meant in only a "figurative way" or "spiritually speaking", then so is the flesh of the crucifixion! Jesus equates the two. Either they are both literal, or they are both figurative.

Also, in regards to eating flesh and drinking blood the word used in v. 54 to eat (and three other places) is trogo. It is not the normal word used for eating. It literally means to gnaw or chew, thus emphasizing the literalness of the chewing. To those Protestants who mock the implications of us chewing Jesus I will throw out a challenge to those mocking Protestants. Show me one time where the word (to eat or chew, trogo) in the Greek is used symbolically anywhere in the New Testament, the Old Testament, the Septuagint, or even in ancient secular literature. If every time it is used in the bible and ancient literature it is used in a literal sense, we must use it that way in exegeting John 6. If it has never been used in the way that Protestants impose on John 6, then the figurative sense of eating flesh can not be possible.

One last objection is that the disciples, including Judas, and Jews left because they did not believe in Jesus, not because they did not believe that Jesus would literally give us his food to eat (although that is the very clearly what the Jews and disciples said before they left (vv. 52, 62), but because Jesus said that we had to believe in him in order to inherit eternal life. To dispel that myth, all we need to do is look at the prior chapter of John, prior to John 6. John 6 shows Jesus having power over life and death, and belief in him necessary for eternal life. However, Jesus had said this prior to John 6. Let us look at one part of John 5 which shows that Jesus already taught similar stuff:

5:23 That all [men] should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
5:27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

We see Jesus already proclaiming himself equal to the Father. He proclaims that Jesus had authority to execute judgment over all men. He proclaimed that those who believed in Jesus passed from death to life, and will attain eternal salvation provided that they have done good (vv. 24, 28-29). Here we see absolutely no disciples leaving him in John 5. Thus, when Jesus gives us his discourse in John 6, if the theory was that he was only telling the disciples to believe him will not wash. The disciples had already heard him say this in John 5. Back then, they did not say, oh, this is a hard saying. In John 6, They took him literally, as did the Jews, and Jesus put them to the test even more. Here is when they said oh, it is a hard saying (6:61). If he saw that they misunderstood him he definitely would have explained it to them privately as Mark 4:34 proclaims.

When these factors are weighed, the literalness of Jesus words must be believed by those who follow Jesus. Is it easy to understand? No. However, all believers must proclaim with Peter, to "whom shall we go, you have the words of eternal life" (John 6:67). This life-giving flesh and blood is made present in the way Jesus taught, through Jesus "words of life" in the Eucharist. Shall we look through eyes of men, who reject this hard saying, or do we look through the eyes of Jesus and those apostles such as Peter who stayed with him. I choose the latter.

[TER]

TER, the only proof that you have that Jesus was not using a metaphor is if you take the position that He never used a metaphor. Sorry if my pointing out the obvious offends you.

This is an incorrect statement. I never said that Christ never used a metaphor. I am not offended but merely perplexed on how you came up with that. Just because Christ used metaphors (in fact, the parables themselves were filled with metaphors!) does not mean He was using a metaphor when He said certain other things. We are in agreement, that Christ at times uses metaphors and other times He does not. You have yet, however, proved anything to support your position and your interpretation with regards to the Holy Eucharist.

Yes Jesus said what you said He said. He also said the Pharisees were whitewashed tombs. It's interesting that the only way you can "rebut" my argument is to ignore the main point of it. Everyone knows that Jesus used a metaphor when talking about the Pharisees. Therefore logic bars you from using Jesus' words regarding His body and blood as being proof that He wasn't speaking metaphorically.

My proof that He wasn't speaking metaphorically in John 6 is not only based on the very Scriptures (which I am sure you will allude to as well as your own individual proof), but more objectively and more historically concretely (in other words, realistically) by the universal teachings of the early Church, and in their worship and common belief with regards to the nature of the Eucharist. My proof starts with the Scriptures and then can further demonstrate as proof the unanimous and continuous confession of the Church from the beginning all the way until now. It is you, rather, who have no proof at all other than your interpretation of the Scriptures, an interpretation which is in honest fact a distorted innovation apart from the Christian faith of the early Church.

The fact which it seems you do not want to face is that your interpretation regarding the Holy Eucharist is found literally NOWHERE in the history of Christian writings, nor in the witness or kerygma of the baptized in Christ (until it was invented after the Reformation came). If you want to make the claim that they (meaning all the Christians of the first 16 centuries) all had it wrong, you can try and make that claim. ( a bold claim to make indeed!) I would of course disagree that it is not they who were all universally wrong, but that it is you rather who have adopted a much later innovative interpretation apart from the faith handed down by the Apostles.

It is you, my friend, who have no proof to support your position within the first 16 centuries of Christianity. All you have is an ahistorical, unsubstantiated, and innovative interpretation of Scriptures from these later times apart from New Testament Church.

No. What's sad is that once again you didn't even address what I said. I will repeat it. In some cases the priests officiating over the Eucharist have been extremely wicked people that will most likely burn in hell. I'm talking about child molesters and worse. So...what becomes of the Eucharist when a wicket priest presides over it? For the protestant that is not a problem. For the RCC and EO Christian it is.....? Do you think God let's the Holy Spirit pass through these unholy men to perform the miracle of the Eucharist anyway? Do you think that in those cases no miracle actually happens? I've brought this question up before and I don't recall you ever attempting to answer. If you have my apologies for forgetting.

I don't recall you ever asking me this question and I am happy to repeat what I wrote in the post above, namely that the grace of God in the Holy Mysteries such as in Holy Baptism and the Holy Eucharist are not dependent on the holiness of the ordained clergy whose work it is to prepare and administer these charisms and spiritual gifts to the faithful which God empowers and manifests. In the year 314, the catholic orthodox and apostolic faith of the Church was proclaimed once and for all time the answer to this question when it sprung up for debate on account of a fringe merciless group from North Africa who were threatening the unity and peace of the Church. I am sorry you oppose this orthodox and apostolic confession. You cannot understand how a sinful priest can provide holy gifts to the people of God because (I suspect) you have a poor understanding of the sacraments and how it is all by the Grace of God whereby we receive and participate in the divine nature and transformative powers of the Holy Spirit in the Holy Mysteries. The sins of the priest do not in any way limit God.

[Kevin007]

This is why internet discussions often times go nowhere. I would ask that we try to be more mature in our dialogue my friend. I don't think anyone put forward the proposition that Jesus has no idea what a metaphor is. I think we can hVe fruitful discussions without going to extremes.



As does any rational human being. Thank you for confirming it! However, you have yet proved your positions that Christ was using metaphors and was not being literal when He said:



In fact, the only evidence we have of the early Church, confirms undoubtedly the literalness of these teachings by the Church. These are simply the facts.



In the early 4th century, this actually came to debate. At that time in North Africa there was a group of Christians in the so called Donatist movement, named after the Bishop of Carthage Donatus Magnus. This movement occurred after the Diocletian persecutions when many baptized Christians apostacized because of imperial threats. This movement of rigorists did not recognize the validity of the sacraments and spiritual authority of those clergy who handed over spiritual books to be burned during the persecution and believed that there is no forgiveness for such grave sin after baptizism because the Church should be a gathering of only holy saints, not sinners. They also professed that any sacraments given by a clergy who had did such great sin would be invalid. This group then separated themselves from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and schismed and then forming their own heirarchy. This happened in 311 AD. They lingered until the fifth century. More information can be found here.

This led to the one of the first great councils and indeed the first representative meeting of Christian hierarchs held in the western part of the Roman Empire in the year 313.

This council was the first one called by emperor Constantine, and below is quoted his letter to summon the meeting. This one is addressed to the Bishop of Syracuse, but is the same letter sent to the Christian Bishops spread throughout the known world:



In this Council, in deliberation, discussion, and above all prayer to God, the Bishops ruled against the re-baptism of heretics (that is, there requires confession and penance, but not a new baptism for those who lapsed). The council also ruled that clergy who could be proven to have been persecuted and delivered sacred books to be burned should be deposed, but their official acts were to be held valid. The council also ruled that at least three bishops were required at the consecration of a bishop.

This is called the Council of Arles (southern Gaul) in the year 314. So what was proclaimed to be the catholic orthodox faith of the Church of Christians was that the validity of the sacraments do not depend on the worthiness of the ordained clergy, since it is God Who sanctifies the mystery. St. Augustine goes on to explain this. In Latin it is called ex opere operato. Click here for more information.



That is so sad, my friend, to hear you, a Christian, say, and in such a matter of fact way. How much you are missing! Your position regarding the Holy Eucharist puts you theologically (and maybe spiritually) at odds with every baptized Christian for the first 1600 years of the history of Christianity. And I am not exaggerating that. I can only hope one day you will come to know.

One can only say 'Come and see!'

this is totally untrue. What are you talking about?


C. Transubstantiation is unorthodox and violates Apostolic tradition:

Roman Catholics and Orthodox misrepresent the historical development of Transubstantiation, since its invention was no sooner than the third century. After all, Transubstantiation only became official Catholic doctrine in 1215 AD, with Pope Innocent III, in the Fourth Lateran Council. So before 200 AD, when writers said that the unleavened grape juice and bread were the body and blood of Christ, they were merely borrowing the words of Christ: "This is my body" etc. It is clear, however, that the church understood this in the symbolic sense, not in the later false doctrine of Transubstantiation.
Here are the historical records that are usually never quoted by Roman Catholic and Orthodox writers because they know it destroys their case.

1. Justin Martyr (150 AD):
Justin Martyr would reject transubstantiation because he referred to the unleavened bread as a "remembrance of His being made flesh", not that the bread was the literal body. He also referred to the unleavened juice as "in remembrance of His own blood" not that the juice was the literal blood of Christ:

"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [Isa 33:13-19] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch 70)

2. Irenaeus (180 AD):

Irenaeus refutes the Gnostics on the basis that the Lord would not use "evil material things" like bread and juice in the Lord's Supper. Had Irenaeus argued that the bread and juice Transubstantiated (changed) into something different from what they appear, the Gnostics would have agreed, saying this change was essential because Jesus did not have physical flesh either!

"Irenaeus has the realist terminology but not the realist thought. There is no conversion of the elements. Indeed, if there were any change in the substance of the elements, his argument that our bodies-in reality, not in appearance-are raised would be subverted." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 114)

3. Tertullian (200 AD):

Tertullian comes right out and states that the bread is a mere symbol of the body of Christ and specifically refutes the Gnostics on this basis:

"Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)

4. Cyprian (200 AD):

Augustine as late at 400 AD, quotes Cyprian as saying that the juice is offered in remembrance as a type and foreshadow of the blood of Christ:

""Observe" he (Cyprian) says, in presenting the cup, to maintain the custom handed down to us from the Lord, and to do nothing that our Lord has not first done for us: so that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be mixed with wine. For, as Christ says, 'I am the true vine,' it follows that the blood of Christ is wine, not water; and the cup cannot appear to contain His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened, if the wine be absent; for by the wine is the blood of Christ typified, that blood which is foreshadowed and proclaimed in all the types and declarations of Scripture." (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, book 4, ch 21, quoting Cyprian)

The same situation prevails in the writings of Tertullian and Cyprian: ... both men when they speak with precision distinguish the symbol from what it represents. The bread was a "figure" of the body. But Tertullian turns the word figura against the Docetism of Marcion (IX.6). The language of symbolism does not help those who deny a real body to Jesus. The bread would not be a figure unless there was first a true body of which it was a figure. There is no shadow without a substance to cast the shadow. Similarly, for Cyprian, literal language about drinking Christ's blood is balanced by language of "remembrance" (X.5) and "representation" (IX.7). Both symbolism and realism are present in the thought of Cyprian and Tertullian. The symbolism concerns bread and wine as signs. (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 115)

4. Hippolytus (200 AD):

Hippolytus speaking of the Lord's Supper as an antitype based upon Prov 9:1:

"And she hath furnished her table: "that denotes the promised knowledge of the Holy Trinity; it also refers to His honoured and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper. (Hippolytus, Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs 9:1)

For Hippolytus, too, the bread and wine are the antitypes or likenesses of the reality portrayed. His consecration prayer (VIII.5) contains both the words of institution and petition for the Holy Spirit. But there is no suggestion of a change in the elements. (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 115)

http://www.bible.ca/ntx-communion-tr...tantiation.htm

[Kevin007]

The Lord's Supper: Transubstantiation, Real Presence
Refuted: The Catholic false doctrine of "transubstantiation".
Transubstantiation is a close cousin to Gnostic theology because both false doctrines claim that "things are not what they appear".
The Bible Blueprint of the Lord's Supper (the Bible pattern)
Introduction:
The Catholic and Greek Orthodox false doctrine of "transubstantiation" teaches that the bread and juice undergo a change to become the literal body and blood of Christ.
A. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine for the following reasons:

1. No Bible verse teaches transubstantiation. Supposed proof texts put forward by Roman Catholic and Orthodox advocates are most naturally seen as proving that the bread and juice were symbols of the body and blood. To see transubstantiation in these texts requires one to strain the text as much as our mind.
2. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus is not a liar: In Mt 26:29 after Jesus had said, "this is my blood" and prayed, he still referred to the contents as, "fruit of the vine". If transubstantiation of the juice into blood had occurred, as both Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches say it was at this time, then Jesus would never have referred to it as "fruit of the vine' but rather "blood". This proves that when Jesus said "take eat & drink" he LITERALLY gave them bread and juice.
3. In like manner, Paul also refers to the elements of the Lord's Supper as "eat this bread and drink the cup" in 1 Cor 11:26 after they should be transubstantiated. 1 Cor 11:26-27 proves transubstantiation wrong because Paul calls the loaf, "bread" after both Roman Catholics and Orthodox say the "change" was supposed to take place. Catholics make Paul a liar by calling the loaf "bread" rather than what Catholic false doctrine claims it was: Literal Flesh.
4. In 1 Corinthians 11:25, Jesus said literally that the "cup was the covenant". So which is it? Is the it the juice that is the covenant or the juice that is the blood? Is it the cup that is the covenant or is the cup the blood?
5. In 1 Cor 11:26-28, Paul instructs us to "drink the cup" instead of "drink the blood". The Holy Spirit would not use such a figure of speech as "synecdoche" (referring to a part for the whole) if such a literal transubstantiation was actually taking place. To use a symbol when such a literal change is taking place is unthinkable.
6. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus instituted Lord's Supper before his blood was shed and body broken! He spoke of His blood being shed, which was still yet future. This proves it was a symbol.
7. The very record of historically, (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian and Hippolytus) which the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches love to quote as authority, proves that before 200 AD, the church viewed the bread and juice as symbols. Conversely, the earliest historical hint of transubstantiation was in the 4th century.
8. Obviously Jesus words, "this is my body" should be taken symbolically because it falls within a long list of symbolic statements Christ said: "I am the bread," (John 6:41), "I am the vine," (John 15:5), "I am the door," (John 10:7,9), "I am the good shepherd,"(John 10:11,12), "You are the world the salt, (Matthew 5:13), "You are the light of the world the salt, (Matthew 5:14)
9. The apostasy of withholding the Cup: Roman Catholics, in the 1415 AD Council of Constance, decreed that the laity could no longer drink of the cup, but the bread alone. This is completely contrary to Scripture and the earliest church traditions. Jesus' own words are "drink from it, all of you" Matthew 26:26 and in Mark 14:22-23 it says "He gave it to them, and they all drank from it." The Greek Orthodox church does not withhold the juice.
10. The Greek orthodox church violates the Bible pattern by using leavened bread, whereas Roman Catholics use unleavened bread, just as Jesus did, (Matthew 26:17) and the Bible records in 1 Cor 5:7-8. Both Roman Catholic and Greek orthodox churches violate the Bible pattern by using leavened wine, instead of unleavened grape juice.
11. The Greek orthodox church violates the Bible pattern by using a "communion spoon" to dip into the cup to retrieve some wine-soaked bread. The Bible pattern for the Lord's Supper is that the bread and juice are not combined, but are two separate steps of "Holy communion".
12. We wonder why Roman Catholics and Orthodox doubt God will grant his full grace and love in the symbolic elements of the bread and the juice? Why is it so hard for them to believe that He grants us the full grace of His Body and Blood via symbols? The water of baptism washes away sin: Acts 2:38; 22:16. You don't get your sins forgiven until you are immersed in water! Water is a symbol of the blood that literally removes sin. For Roman Catholics and Orthodox to believe in "real presence", is as logical as the idea that water of baptism turns into literal blood!

B. Catholics and Orthodox misrepresent history:
Transubstantiation is completely unbiblical, being a doctrine that grew out of the Gnostic controversies of the mid second century and gradually developing to full flower in the 4th century. The Gnostics claimed that Jesus did not have literal flesh and blood, it only appeared that way. The early post-apostolic Christians countered that Jesus indeed had ordinary human flesh and blood and they began to emphasize this in the Lord's Supper.

"The early centuries were not exercised with a "moment" of consecration, for they had not become concerned with a conversion in the elements." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 114)

Orthodox writers misrepresent history, but correctly identify the Lord's Supper as a battle ground between Christians and Gnostics.

"In the early Church, the only people who denied that the Eucharist was truly the Body and Blood of Christ were those who also denied that the Word had truly become man." (THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p 173)

The historically accurate way of saying this would be:

"In the early Church, before 200AD, both Gnostics and the church took the same symbolic view of the bread and juice. Some Gnostics refused to eat the Lord's Supper altogether. Transubstantiation was not an issue that was discussed. By the fourth century, the church drifted away from the original symbolic view of the Apostles and began to teach transubstantiation. Only in the fourth century, were Gnostics isolated in their symbolic view. But amazingly, they were the ones who maintained the Apostolic traditional view. It was the church that had changed her theology towards transubstantiation."

Some Gnostics groups refused to break bread altogether. The only churches today that do not break bread at all, like the Gnostics, are groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Salvation Army. But even still, the 2nd century Gnostics and the church both viewed the elements of the Lord's Supper as symbolic. Transubstantiation was never the issue at this time.
But those Gnostics who did partake of the Table of the Lord, were openly criticized by the church as being inconsistent.

"How can they (Gnostics) be consistent with, themselves when they say the bread for which they give thanks is the body of their Lord and the cup his blood, if they do not say he is the Son of the Creator of the world? ... Let them either change their views or avoid offering the bread and wine. But our view is in harmony with the eucharist, and the eucharist confirms our view". (Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.xviii.4, 5)

Amazingly the language of the Gnostics was the same literalistic language used by the church:

"they say the bread for which they give thanks is the body of their Lord and the cup his blood". (Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.xviii.4, 5)

In truth, however, this literalistic language was typical of how everyone talked on all sides of the debate before 200AD. But we want to note that the Orthodox statement is quite wrong when they say the Gnostics distinguished between transubstantiation and the symbolic view, for they in fact used the same identical literalistic language as the church. For Roman Catholic and Orthodox historians to be consistent, they would need to admit, that if the literalistic language of "this is my body" proves transubstantiation, then they are forced to admit that the Gnostics at the time of Irenaeus in 180 AD, also believed in transubstantiation. Of course the truth is that both the church and Gnostics taught the symbolic view, while employing the same literalistic language.
In fact, the logic employed by early church leaders like Irenaeus to defeat Gnosticism, were specifically based upon a symbolic, non-transubstantiation view of communion. In other words, Irenaeus' whole argument would have been defeated, if he believed in Transubstantiation. The very logic of Irenaeus' argument is that the Lord's supper is composed of natural elements of common juice and bread.

"He (the Gnostic) acknowledged the created cup with which he moistens our blood as his own blood, and he confirmed the created bread from which our bodies grow as his own body. Since therefore the cup that has been mixed and the bread that has been made, from which things the substance of our flesh grows and is sustained, receive the word of God and the eucharist becomes the body of Christ, how do they say that the flesh which is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord and is a member of him is incapable of receiving the gift of God which is eternal life?" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies V.ii.2, 3)

The Gnostics viewed everything physical as evil. Had Irenaeus argued that the natural elements of common juice and bread were transubstantiated into something different than what they appear, namely the body and blood of Christ, the Gnostics would have agreed completely, while maintaining their view that the body of Christ was not composed of natural elements, but only appeared to be. Had Irenaeus been arguing transubstantiation, the Gnostics would have countered, "We agree and it proves Jesus did not have literal flesh and blood. Just as you (Irenaeus) have argued that the bread and juice must be transubstantiated into something that is undetectable to our senses, we argue that the reason it is undetectable to our senses, is because the literal body and blood of Christ on the cross, like the bread and juice, were not what they appear!

"Irenaeus has the realist terminology but not the realist thought. There is no conversion of the elements. Indeed, if there were any change in the substance of the elements, his argument that our bodies -in reality, not in appearance- are raised would be subverted." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 114)

So it was critical that Irenaeus specifically avoid the doctrine of transubstantiation in his recorded argument against the Gnostics.
The way the church refuted the Gnostics was based upon the symbolic view. As late as 200 AD, Tertullian bases the reality of Christ's body on the cross, upon the fact that the bread is symbolic:

"Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)

This is the kind of historical information that Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches keep from their people. Both the early church and the Gnostics rejected transubstantiation and took the symbolic view.
C. Transubstantiation is unorthodox and violates Apostolic tradition:
Roman Catholics and Orthodox misrepresent the historical development of Transubstantiation, since its invention was no sooner than the third century. After all, Transubstantiation only became official Catholic doctrine in 1215 AD, with Pope Innocent III, in the Fourth Lateran Council. So before 200 AD, when writers said that the unleavened grape juice and bread were the body and blood of Christ, they were merely borrowing the words of Christ: "This is my body" etc. It is clear, however, that the church understood this in the symbolic sense, not in the later false doctrine of Transubstantiation.
Here are the historical records that are usually never quoted by Roman Catholic and Orthodox writers because they know it destroys their case.
1. Justin Martyr (150 AD):
Justin Martyr would reject transubstantiation because he referred to the unleavened bread as a "remembrance of His being made flesh", not that the bread was the literal body. He also referred to the unleavened juice as "in remembrance of His own blood" not that the juice was the literal blood of Christ:

"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [Isa 33:13-19] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch 70)

2. Irenaeus (180 AD):
Irenaeus refutes the Gnostics on the basis that the Lord would not use "evil material things" like bread and juice in the Lord's Supper. Had Irenaeus argued that the bread and juice Transubstantiated (changed) into something different from what they appear, the Gnostics would have agreed, saying this change was essential because Jesus did not have physical flesh either!

"Irenaeus has the realist terminology but not the realist thought. There is no conversion of the elements. Indeed, if there were any change in the substance of the elements, his argument that our bodies-in reality, not in appearance-are raised would be subverted." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 114)

3. Tertullian (200 AD):
Tertullian comes right out and states that the bread is a mere symbol of the body of Christ and specifically refutes the Gnostics on this basis:

"Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)

4. Cyprian (200 AD):
Augustine as late at 400 AD, quotes Cyprian as saying that the juice is offered in remembrance as a type and foreshadow of the blood of Christ:

""Observe" he (Cyprian) says, in presenting the cup, to maintain the custom handed down to us from the Lord, and to do nothing that our Lord has not first done for us: so that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be mixed with wine. For, as Christ says, 'I am the true vine,' it follows that the blood of Christ is wine, not water; and the cup cannot appear to contain His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened, if the wine be absent; for by the wine is the blood of Christ typified, that blood which is foreshadowed and proclaimed in all the types and declarations of Scripture." (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, book 4, ch 21, quoting Cyprian)

The same situation prevails in the writings of Tertullian and Cyprian: ... both men when they speak with precision distinguish the symbol from what it represents. The bread was a "figure" of the body. But Tertullian turns the word figura against the Docetism of Marcion (IX.6). The language of symbolism does not help those who deny a real body to Jesus. The bread would not be a figure unless there was first a true body of which it was a figure. There is no shadow without a substance to cast the shadow. Similarly, for Cyprian, literal language about drinking Christ's blood is balanced by language of "remembrance" (X.5) and "representation" (IX.7). Both symbolism and realism are present in the thought of Cyprian and Tertullian. The symbolism concerns bread and wine as signs. (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 115)

4. Hippolytus (200 AD):
Hippolytus speaking of the Lord's Supper as an antitype based upon Prov 9:1:

"And she hath furnished her table: "that denotes the promised knowledge of the Holy Trinity; it also refers to His honoured and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper. (Hippolytus, Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs 9:1)

For Hippolytus, too, the bread and wine are the antitypes or likenesses of the reality portrayed. His consecration prayer (VIII.5) contains both the words of institution and petition for the Holy Spirit. But there is no suggestion of a change in the elements. (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 115)

D. The Devil's Plan:
The devil wanted to get the church to go into apostasy. So he started with the Gnostics who argued Jesus only appeared to have literal flesh and blood, but in fact he did not. After 200 years of anti-Gnostic battling, the church, finally adopted a remarkably similar view! Transubstantiation teaches that, although the elements of the Lord's Supper appear to be literal grape juice and bread, they are not what they appear. They are in fact different than what the 5 human senses tell us they really are: the literal blood and flesh of Christ. Our senses are deceiving us!
At first (100-200 AD) the church merely began to emphasize to the Gnostics, that the symbols of the Lord's Supper were based upon a literal flesh of Christ. In time, however, between 225 and 300 AD, the church began to counter the Gnostic theology in a new way. Whereas before, they had argued that the symbols of the bread and juice must be based upon a literal body, they suddenly began to emphasizing the literalistic language Jesus: "this is my body" against the Gnostics. Although this new line of reasoning that began no sooner than 225 AD, was successful, it required an abandonment of the orthodox arguments used the century before, which were all directly based upon the symbolic view. But now the Devil had succeeded in getting the church to use one false doctrine (Transubstantiation) to defeat another: Gnosticism. Refuting one false doctrine with another is quite common in theological debates and the reader needs to be aware of this. For example, Seventh-day Adventists convert all kinds of Catholics to Saturday worship because Catholics mistakenly call Sunday the Sabbath. The Adventist correctly points out that the 7th day Sabbath is Saturday, but completely overlooks the fact that the Sabbath law itself was abolished. Thus Adventist false doctrine merely converts the Catholic from one false doctrine to another. In like manner, the church between 225 - 300 AD defeated the Gnostic false doctrine with the false doctrine of Transubstantiation.
E. Transubstantiation is a close cousin to Gnosticism:
While the Gnostics claimed the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ on the cross was different than what it appeared to be, so too the church began to claim that the bread and juice were not what they appeared to be. Transubstantiation, therefore, is a close cousin to Gnostic theology because both false doctrines claim that "things are not what they appear".
F. The case of transubstantiation proves that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches reliance on "church tradition" is invalid:
When the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches teach the false doctrine of transubstantiation, they are teaching something quite "unorthodox and uncatholic". Christ, the apostolic tradition and the early church up to 200 AD universally taught the symbolic view. But even if we accept their claim that transubstantiation is the view that church tradition verifies, we ask, "Then why do you disagree with each other?"
Remember, communion is a most basic and fundamental ordinance. In fact, since the earliest Christians gathered together for the express purpose of "breaking bread" (Acts 20:7) it obviously proves transubstantiation a non-biblical doctrine, because had it been taught by the apostles, the fourth century fight over the liturgy of the Lord's Supper would never have occurred.

"No consideration of the nature of consecration or the precise moment when it was effected appears in the early sources. In the fourth century, however, the idea of a conversion of the elements finds expression. When that occurred, it became important to define the moment of the change." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 107)

The western church (which later developed into the Roman Catholic church, headed out of Rome) believed the precise moment the unleavened juice and bread changed literally (transubstantiated) into the blood and body of Christ, was when the words "This is my body ... This is my blood" were spoken.
The eastern church (which later developed into the Orthodox church headed out of Constantinople) believed the precise moment the unleavened juice and bread changed literally (transubstantiated) into the blood and body of Christ, was in the prayer of thanksgiving.
Obviously then, "church tradition" does not lead to unity because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are irrevocably and bitterly divided over the Eucharist. Using the scriptures alone is the only way to settle all doctrinal matters.

[TER]

Kevin, using poorly translated quotes out of context from the Church Fathers does not support your position. But that you are using them is a good start. You should do more of that.

[Kevin007]

Kevin, using poorly translated quotes out of context from the Church Fathers does not support your position. But that you are using them is a good start. You should do more of that.

want to refute them? or the 12 points? No you don't; because you cannot.

[TER]

want to refute them?

Not really Kevin. My experience with you is that the information I provide you is ignored and then once I start asking you questions, you disappear! I rather move on to other discussions.

[Kevin007]

Not really Kevin. My experience with you is that the information I provide you is ignored and then once I start asking you questions, you disappear! I rather move on to other discussions.

lol. Ask me a question, I'm here....

[heavenlyboy34]

Not really Kevin. My experience with you is that the information I provide you is ignored and then once I start asking you questions, you disappear! I rather move on to other discussions.

Wise move, brother. ~hugs~

[RJB]

lol. Ask me a question, I'm here....

Here is a question: Why do you constantly troll Roman Catholics and Orthodox when most Protestant denominations believe in a form of Christ's presence in communion?

[Kevin007]

Here is a question: Why do you constantly troll Roman Catholics and Orthodox when most Protestant denominations believe in a form of Christ's presence in communion?

its a memoriam. It's not trolling- its called fighting the good fight against false teachings.

[Kevin007]

Not really Kevin. My experience with you is that the information I provide you is ignored and then once I start asking you questions, you disappear! I rather move on to other discussions.

actually all you do is dump hundreds of pro eo website articles on this board.

[heavenlyboy34]

actually all you do is dump hundreds of pro eo website articles on this board.

I've watched the debates. This is false.

[heavenlyboy34]

its a memoriam. It's not trolling- its called fighting the good fight against false teachings.

There are no false teachings in the EOC. That's why you can't address anything directly, and never have. You just have baseless accusations and claims you can't prove. (and some outright lies) I noticed that before I put you on ignore you didn't even understand the basics of EO teachings, and I still don't see it (on the occasions I have the patience to watch).

[Kevin007]

There are no false teachings in the EOC. That's why you can't address anything directly, and never have. You just have baseless accusations and claims you can't prove. (and some outright lies)

plenty of false teachings..... you wouldn't admit to them if it hit you in the face.

[RJB]

I've watched the debates. This is false.

In some ways it's true. I disagree with the dumping comment, but it is true that TER posts numerous threads on how God works through the Orthodox Faith because he can.

Kevin doesn't post how God work through his faith because he CAN'T.

He won't attack the Lutheran belief in Christ's presence in the Eucharist but rather he attacks the Apostolic Churches. It's because without us to protest against, he is nothing. Feel pity for him for being so devoid of God's love.

[Kevin007]

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.ca/201...of-harlot.html

[RJB]

http://galatiansfour.blogspot.ca/201...of-harlot.html

Your instincts for gathering research material resembles that of a dung beetle.

[Kevin007]

as usual, personal attacks I welcome them. It means the truth is getting out there. The wicked hate the truth.

[Kevin007]

In some ways it's true. I disagree with the dumping comment, but it is true that TER posts numerous threads on how God works through the Orthodox Faith because he can.

Kevin doesn't post how God work through his faith because he CAN'T.

He won't attack the Lutheran belief in Christ's presence in the Eucharist but rather he attacks the Apostolic Churches. It's because without us to protest against, he is nothing. Feel pity for him for being so devoid of God's love.

lol, don't feel pity on me. I feel pity on you following false idols, icons and men.

[heavenlyboy34]

In some ways it's true. I disagree with the dumping comment, but it is true that TER posts numerous threads on how God works through the Orthodox Faith because he can.

Kevin doesn't post how God work through his faith because he CAN'T.

He won't attack the Lutheran belief in Christ's presence in the Eucharist but rather he attacks the Apostolic Churches. It's because without us to protest against, he is nothing. Feel pity for him for being so devoid of God's love.

Fair enough. I'll concede that.

[specsaregood]

as usual, personal attacks

I thought it was a compliment. Dung beetles are fascinating insects that take a waste resource and improve the planet using it. They are natural born recyclers, why the hate? Not only that, they are the only insect to use the stars to navigate. You should be thankful for the comparison, we should all hope to be so productive.

[heavenlyboy34]

I thought it was a compliment. Dung beetles are fascinating insects that take a waste resource and improve the planet using it. They are natural born recyclers, why the hate? Not only that, they are the only insect to use the stars to navigate. You should be thankful for the comparison, we should all hope to be so productive.

That^^ and attacking debate skill is not a personal attack.

[Kevin007]

still never answered the problems with the eucharist (literal presence) not being biblical. Jesus also said He was the door. Is He a literal door?

[RJB]

as usual, personal attacks I welcome them. It means the truth is getting out there. The wicked hate the truth.

Personal attacks? Just about everything you post about my faith is a lie, a misrepresentation or severe misunderstanding. When you post nothing that's true and ignore TER's response, there really isn't more to say than to point out that what CUT AND PASTE about my faith is crap.