|
Post by Pietro on Aug 27, 2004 10:21:51 GMT -5
How did the Holy Spirit reveal this to you? Words? vision? insight? Did it require any openness on your part? The Holy Spirit revealed it to me through the witness of other Christians, and through His written word. He helped me understand what Christ had done for me, and why.As for transubstantiation, a limited description at best, you simply join the ranks of some protestants since the 16th century. No deeper roots than that other than pagans and apostates. Many times have I asked myself the question: "Is transubstantiation true?" And the same answer keeps coming back to me: "It's false."BTW: What does your mighty "intellect" tell you about creation? "Mighty intellect"? Why, thank you, I'll take that as a compliment. My "mighty" intellect tells me that we never evolved from the apes because God created us in His image. My "mighty" intellect tells me that the evolutionists are talking out of their backsides when they say that we are "modern apes". My "mighty" intellect tells me that we live in a world that is full of lies and cover-ups. And no, I'm not paranoid, I simply accept that that is how this world works. Politicians are a good example of this. As the old saying goes, "There's no smoke without fire."
Christian. ;D Certainly your mighty intellect is serviing you well in advocating a healthy skepticism, particularly in the realm of the world and politics. May the Holy Spirit also bless you with accurate discernment to sort out the true from the false in a spirit of humility
|
|
|
Post by AlphaOmega on Aug 27, 2004 10:29:15 GMT -5
Certainly your mighty intellect is serviing you well in advocating a healthy skepticism, particularly in the realm of the world and politics. May the Holy Spirit also bless you with accurate discernment to sort out the true from the false in a spirit of humility Thank you Bro' ! Christian. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Aug 27, 2004 21:13:57 GMT -5
It is only a contradiction if you think that Jesus is incapable of such a possibilty. Are you saying that Jesus would not be capable of performing such a miracle? You haven't given me a single good reason for why Christ would change the bread and the wine of the Eucharist into His flesh and blood, and I haven't witnessed transubstantiation, so I don't accept it as fact.I am approaching my 50th year on this earth, and there are a great many things I've witnessed that cause me to wonder at God's greatness. But in addition to this, there are a great many things I've only heard of, that despite no personal knowledge, know them to be true. For example, the pain a mother goes through with the birth of her child, but how it pkmtyolpes once she holds her infant in her arms for the first time. Or see the rise and fall of great civilizations, but know that they once exited. I've never been to the moon, but can look on in wonderment at the perfect symetry of God's creation. I've also never been to the oceans depths, but know there are amazing creatures known only to God that will never see the light of day. I also have faith in God's plan that some day soon all will be revealed and sickness like cancers will be cured. I've also was not witness to Jesus death and resurrection, but through my faith know it to be true. Thomas had the same intellect as you and I, yet he doubted the truth as told to Him.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Aug 27, 2004 21:15:46 GMT -5
And that is because His Holy Spirit has revealed it to me. Could I have believed it by myself? No. The Holy Spirit has not told me that "transubstantiation" is true. And my intellect tells me it is untrue, so I don't believe in it. Christian. As you well know, ALL truth as yet to be revealed by the Holy Spirit. None but the Father knows all.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Aug 27, 2004 21:17:12 GMT -5
That is pretty cool and almost the exact same experience that I have when I take communion. The only difference being is that it is a powerful symbol of Christ's sacrifice for me. Fair enough...
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Aug 28, 2004 16:32:57 GMT -5
Jesus told us the purpose of the Lord's Supper. He said ...
Do this in remembrance of Me. Luke 22:19b NASB
The koinê' Greek text reads ...
tou'to poiei'te eis tê'n emê'n ana'mnêsin .
I translate this as ...
Youpl must continue doing this into/unto my rememberance. (emphasis from Greek word choice and positioning)
Jesus commanded his disciples to repeat the Lord's Supper as a reminder of Him.
TB
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Aug 29, 2004 9:47:53 GMT -5
Jesus told us the purpose of the Lord's Supper. He said ...Do this in remembrance of Me.Luke 22:19b NASBThe koinê' Greek text reads ... tou'to poiei'te eis tê'n emê'n ana'mnêsin .I translate this as ...Youpl must continue doing this into/unto my rememberance.(emphasis from Greek word choice and positioning) Jesus commanded his disciples to repeat the Lord's Supper as a reminder of Him.
TB
TB... I defer to your expetise in Greek. However in all fairness, the phrase you reference is part of another dialog that was taking place: Luke 22:19-20 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.
Was Our Lord referencing the portion He just mentioned, or the entire pkmtyolpover Seder which this was a part of?
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Aug 29, 2004 16:14:25 GMT -5
TB... I defer to your expetise in Greek. However in all fairness, the phrase you reference is part of another dialog that was taking place: Luke 22:19-20 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.
Was Our Lord referencing the portion He just mentioned, or the entire pkmtyolpover Seder which this was a part of? Our Lord was referencing the portion He just mentioned. Paul wrote ...23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same way He took the cup also 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 in Paul's account Jesus repeated the remembering part immediately after the breaking of the bread and again after the drinking of the wine. Paul is not referring to it as a pkmtyolpover meal, but as the kuriako'n dei'pnon -- the Lord's Supper.TB
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Aug 29, 2004 18:16:03 GMT -5
Our Lord was referencing the portion He just mentioned. Paul wrote ...23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same way He took the cup also 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 in Paul's account Jesus repeated the remembering part immediately after the breaking of the bread and again after the drinking of the wine. Paul is not referring to it as a pkmtyolpover meal, but as the kuriako'n dei'pnon -- the Lord's Supper.TB Is it safe to assume that when Paul was referring to the Lord's Supper, which we Chrisitans commonly refer to the Last Supper, was a pkmtyolpover Seder? I think it also safe to say that what Paul was referring to was not the entire meal, but the portion where Our Lord blessed the bread and wine and shared with the disciples as His Body and Blood as a rememberance of Him. I don't think there is any question if Jesus could perform transubstantiation if He chose to. The question is did He? And should it be strictly a matter of how Scripture is interprepted, or is it a matter of faith? TB, is there anything in the koinê' Greek text that would allow for Our Lord to perform such a miracle and gift? Or does the old Greek words leavee such an interpreptation as an impossibilty?
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Aug 29, 2004 21:07:02 GMT -5
There's nothing in the wording of the Greek text that would prevent it from being interpreted as Jesus having turned the bread into flesh and the wine into blood. On the other hand, there's nothing which indicates He performed transubstantiation -- that after he changed the bread and wine into his flesh and blood, they still physically resembled bread and wine.
In His other miracles, people could be sure they occured. They bore witness to them. If Jesus performed transubstantiation at the Last Supper, no one knew it for sure and no one bore witness to it.
TB
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Aug 29, 2004 21:35:54 GMT -5
There's nothing in the wording of the Greek text that would prevent it from being interpreted as Jesus having turned the bread into flesh and the wine into blood. On the other hand, there's nothing which indicates He performed transubstantiation -- that after he changed the bread and wine into his flesh and blood, they still physically resembled bread and wine.
In His other miracles, people could be sure they occured. They bore witness to them. If Jesus performed transubstantiation at the Last Supper, no one knew it for sure and no one bore witness to it.
TB An interesting response regarding all His other miracles that bore tangible results (wedding feast in Cana, feeding of the multitude, etc.). I heard an interesting analogy of transubstantiation. If for example in the military if a commanding officer says, "...you are now a captain...", assuming they had the authority, would not that individual would be a captain? There was no physical change, but the individual role was substantially changed. So when Our Lord said "....this is My Body...", does He not have sufficient authority to make it so?
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Aug 30, 2004 8:02:13 GMT -5
An interesting response regarding all His other miracles that bore tangible results (wedding feast in Cana, feeding of the multitude, etc.). I heard an interesting analogy of transubstantiation. If for example in the military if a commanding officer says, "...you are now a captain...", assuming they had the authority, would not that individual would be a captain? There was no physical change, but the individual role was substantially changed. So when Our Lord said "....this is My Body...", does He not have sufficient authority to make it so? Didn't the Angel Gabriel say ...ho'ti ouk adunatê'sei para' tou' theou' pa'n rhê'ma .Luke 1:37 NA26Everything will be possible with God’s every spoken word.My humble translation I confess Jesus is God the Son! He has always had the power and the authority to do anything.
But, that doesn't mean He has done everything the Catholic Church says He has done. You're arguing that if he had the power and authority to change bread and wine to his flesh and blood, he must have done it. Is this correct?
TB
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Aug 30, 2004 9:18:37 GMT -5
An interesting response regarding all His other miracles that bore tangible results (wedding feast in Cana, feeding of the multitude, etc.). I heard an interesting analogy of transubstantiation. If for example in the military if a commanding officer says, "...you are now a captain...", assuming they had the authority, would not that individual would be a captain? There was no physical change, but the individual role was substantially changed. So when Our Lord said "....this is My Body...", does He not have sufficient authority to make it so? And that is a symbolic change. Nothing happens to the person, but that person now is a symbol of higher authority than they were before.
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Aug 30, 2004 9:24:33 GMT -5
And that is a symbolic change. Nothing happens to the person, but that person now is a symbol of higher authority than they were before. LOL, now it sounds like splitting hairs because I have to respond... The person DOES have more authority than he did before. He IS of a higher rank. He is not symbolic of authority, he HAS authority --and the responsibility that goes with it. Blessings, LJ
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Aug 30, 2004 10:43:00 GMT -5
LOL, now it sounds like splitting hairs because I have to respond... The person DOES have more authority than he did before. He IS of a higher rank. He is not symbolic of authority, he HAS authority --and the responsibility that goes with it. Blessings, LJ Yeah, that is true, and as a matter of fact, the symbols of his authority change too. That are, the stars, or stripes, or other insignia on the uniform that demonstrate his rank. So the person actually did change physically (in a small part). It can be seen that the person is different. If all armed forces personel wore the same clothing with the same insignia, then nobody would be able to tell who the officers are, unless they are told. Similar to the transubstantiation argument. You can't tell that the bread and wine have been converted into flesh and blood unless you are told.
|
|