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.

(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.


C Michael Patton
C Michael Patton

C. Michael Patton is the primary contributor to the Parchment and Pen/Credo Blog. He has been in ministry for nearly twenty years as a pastor, author, speaker, and blogger. Find him on Patreon Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary (2001), president of Credo House Ministries and Credo Courses, author of Now that I'm a Christian (Crossway, 2014) Increase My Faith (Credo House, 2011), and The Theology Program (Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, 2001-2006), host of Theology Unplugged, and primary blogger here at Parchment and Pen. But, most importantly, husband to a beautiful wife and father to four awesome children. Michael is available for speaking engagements. Join his Patreon and support his ministry

    345 replies to "Five Reasons I Reject the Doctrine of Transubstantiation"

    • Ron Willis

      Here should be the primary question, Michael: What did the Church (Jesus body of believers on Earth) say about the Eucharist in its very beginnings? That is the true litmus test, don’t you agree? Well, then it becomes very clear that transubstantiation WAS the belief of the Christians at that time. Read Augustine or any other early Doctor of the Church. Paul himself said “This cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” 1 Cor 10:16.

      Finally, your ignoring of the John Chapter 6 Bread of Life Discourse indicates that you have not studied the actual meaning of the words spoken by Christ at that time. Begin with the context of the setting. Christ tells this to his Disciples while TEACHING in a synagogue in Capernaum after they have eaten “of the loaves and were filled,” “Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life.” Then they respond, “What can we do to accomplish the works of God?” Jesus’ answer . . . “Your ancestors at the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and NOT die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats (meaning is gnaws) this bread will live forever . . . ” The “quarreling” then began and Christ made it even clearer that he was speaking literally when he said, “For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.”

      “Then many of his disciples who were listening said, ‘This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Jesus’ response, “Does this shock you? . . . The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Many of his disciples then “return to their former way of life” and Jesus asks the 12, “Do you also want to leave?” Peter responds, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

      So then the gospel of John does INDEED not only support transubstantiation, it is the most revealing of its true meaning of all of the gospels, Michael. I will pray first for the anathema that you have written and secondly for God’s wisdom to come upon you to understand the power of the Eucharist.

    • R. Zell

      Hi Michael,

      The Gospel of John fails to mention the Eucharist

      Although St. John does not include the Institution of the Eucharist in the details of his eyewitness account of what occurs in the “Upper Room,” he does point us to the Institution of the Eucharist. In John ch. 6, he places the feeding of the 5,000, the walking on water and The Bread of Life Discourse near the time of the Passover. The second temple Jews were awaiting deliverance from Roman or Pagan oppression. At John’s Last Supper narrative, again, it is the Passover. St. John wants this connection to be understood.

      Without getting into the a lengthy discussion on Transubstantiation, looking at the last part of The Bread of Life Discourse, verse John 6:25-71, only two Apostles are mentioned, Simon Peter and Judas. St. John makes it a point to tell us that Judas, one of the 12 was going to betray him. This is very important to understanding the narrative occurring in the “Upper Room.” Jesus now echos the words of St. John in John 6:71 in John 13:21 and said “Truely, truly, I say to you, that one of you will betray Me.” The Apostles don’t know who it is, but we do know who it is. John revealed this to us.

      Now to the “Upper Room.” The only two Apostles named of the 12 who were present at The Bread of Life Discourse and at the Last Supper are again, both Simon Peter and Judas. It’s interesting that Simon Peter asks the Disciple who Jesus loved, who was reclining on the bosom of the Lord (where else should one put there head to rest) to ask Jesus who it was that was going to betray him and he asks “Lord, who is it? And Jesus answers him in verse 6:26-28

      (26)”It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” So when he had dipped the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot. (27) After he received the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “Do quickly what you are going to do.” (28) Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him.

      There are no coincidences in Scripture. This we can 100% agree on. St. John wants us to connect: The Bread of Life Discousre, the Passover, the Disciples who leave Jesus in John 6:66, Simon Peter, Judas, and The Last Supper with Bread. Let me explain.

      John doesn’t have an Institution Narrative and an eating of the Passover Meal, so we can assume that the Passover Ritual is observed here in Johns Gospel. From the other Gospels we know that Jesus takes the bread, blesses the bread, breaks the bread and gives it to the Apostles. What Bread does He give to the Apostles? Blessed Bread.

      Jesus gives us the difference between ordinary bread from the kitchen and the Consecrated, Blessed Bread of His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Right from the hand of Jesus himself, He gives Judas the unconsecrated, unblessed Bread and at that very moment Satan enters him. The bread Judas eats is symbolic of bread that is neither Consecrated and Blessed by the Words of the Savior when he picks up bread and Institues the Eucharist.

      Judas and therefore Satan, is never a witness to the Institution of the Eucharist and the New Covenant. Neither has a part in it.

      These are St. Johns pointers for us to understanding the Eucharist. Again, there are no coincidences in Scripture.

      In Christ,

      R. Zell

      The difference between the Bread that Jesus gave to the Apostles and the bread he gave to Judas,

    • Pastor Jim

      The Eucharist
      Semiotics is roughly speaking the study of the use of symbols and/or signs to represent or signal an actual referent. In medicine a sign may be considered a symptom, for instance, of an identifiable disease that is present in the patient. It is not the disease, it simply signals or indicates the presence of the disease. The same can be said for a sign of health. The rhythm of a sound heart beat signals a certain wellness, or good stamina indicates a healthy constitution.

      In theology, however, we must carefully differentiate between symbol and sign. A dove, for instance, my represent peace or even the Holy Ghost, but the symbol in no way takes on the characteristics of that for which it stands except to suggest. Whereas, on the other hand, a sign does directly connect to the referent to which it suggest—in other words, there is a synergetic relationship.

      Take, for instance, the promise that—
      “These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover (Mark 16:17-18).”

      The scripture does not say, “These symbols shall follow,” no rather “These signs shall follow.”

      Now, it is my contention that The Lord’s Supper, of instance, is sign rather than a symbol—a synergetic relationship is present in the form of an efficaciously prevailing presence of Christ under the form of the bread and wine. This is my body, truly means that this is His Body, and the same for the wine.

      Let us carry this one step further. There is a world of difference between saying, “I am the door” (which He is obviously not a wooden door with iron hinges) and saying, “This is My Body, this is My blood.” One, the former, is a symbol, whereas, the other is a sign. Nowhere does Christ hold up and door, and say, “This is me. Take a good look. This is me.” The same applies to a road, or vine or whatever symbol he chooses to compare himself with as a symbol. The poet may say and theologians agree that Christ “is the lily of the valleys, and the rose of Sharon in Song of Solomon 2:1, but none would suggest that He is present in the lilies or roses—certainly, these are not signs, but rather symbols or metaphors.

      Now, how do we know these things? We know them because of two things—firstly, because of commonsense; and secondly, because nowhere else in relation to anything else has He ever said, this is My Body, this is My blood.

      I am not quite sure if I am able to go as far as Flannery O’Connor, an otherwise devote Catholic who once remarked in response to someone suggesting that the Eucharist was simply a symbol—

      “Well, if it’s a symbol, to hell with it!”

      I will, however, say, that as a symbol it fails to explain why Paul cautioned against taking the Eucharistic meal unworthily. (1 Corinthians 11:27). A symbol has only the power of suggestion; whereas, a sign signifies a presence. To put it bluntly, I have failed to see a symbol or memorial kill anyone; whereas, illness that is present in the human expresses itself as a sign or symptom, but never a symbol. Thus, the difference between a sign and a symbol. With a sign there is always something present; whereas, with a symbol there is only ideation.

      Then, of course, we also have the first centuries of Christian history to vouch for the real presence in the form of bread and wine, beginning as early as The Didache , which most scholars place in the mid to late first century, however, the renown, albeit liberal, Anglican scholar Bishop John Robinson argues that it was most probably written in the first generation of Christian history, dating it as early c. 40–60 AD.

      So, we must decide whether or not we are willing to accept the testimony of Scripture as well as Church history as a true testimony or that of schismatic Protestants and/or other erstwhile heretics.

      “In the Orthodox view, all of reality—the world and man himself—is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us. Thus, the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God’s true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ. Thus, by eating and drinking the bread and wine which are mystically consecrated by the Holy Spirit, we have genuine communion with God through Christ who is himself “the bread of life” (Jn 6:34, 41).

      I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh (Jn 6:51).

      Thus, the bread of the Eucharist is Christ’s flesh, and Christ’s flesh is the Eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one. The word “symbolical” in Orthodox terminology means exactly this: “to bring together into one.”

      The mystery of the holy Eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. For the Eucharist—and Christ himself—is indeed a mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is “not of this world.” The Eucharist—because it belongs to God’s Kingdom—is truly free from the earth-born “logic” of fallen humanity.

      Now, whereas, the Orthodox position may sound a little simplistic, in reality it is not. To declare something is not to define that something. Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, made a straightforward declaration—“This bread is my body,” he said; and “This wine is my blood” requires belief not an explanation.

      Finally, let us revisit 1 Corinthians 10:14-15, which reads:
      Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

      Firstly, I would like for you to notice that Paul addresses the sin of idolatry; which, coincidentally negates any thought that the Eucharistic celebration is in any way connected with idolatry. Secondly, it should also me noted that Paul appeals to “sensible people,” then goes on to say, “Judge for yourself!” Which in a sense is quiet astounding, considering the fact that he immediately asserts that to give thanks over the cup of thanksgiving (which is filled with wine) is to actually participate—that is, ingest the blood of Christ. When we share a Eucharistic meal that is precisely what we do—we ingest the same bread and the same wine which both Paul and Jesus agree is the body of Christ. And, Paul considers this to be a “sensible” conclusion.

      Why should this baffle our senses? Mark informs us that following the Resurrection Jesus “appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country (Mark 16:12)”; which was no doubt the same incident that Luke records that happened on the Road to Emmaus (Luke 24:14). Jesus is in no way restricted to a particular form, should he chose not to be. His resurrection appearance baffled Mary at the tomb—it was only after she heard his voice was she able to say, “Rabboni” (John 20:16). Further, if we backtrack into Matthew 13:1-13 we find that even prior to His Resurrection His appearance change on the Mount of Transfiguration. Then, of course, we could reference the Theophanies which once again illustrate His reincarnate ability to change, as it were His appearance—remember, He was the lamb slain from the foundation of the earth; so the efficaciousness of His power as Savior is not limited to time or space. He is, after all—
      [The] radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. (Hebrews 1:3 NIV)

      That, of course, includes sustaining the efficacy of His sacrifice by the sheer force of saying of the bread and wine at the Last Supper, “This is my body, this is my blood.” Although, some would object and say, how can bread and wine be transformed into His body and blood? Science as a matter of fact, they say, refutes that. Whereas, Aristotelian logic has shown that there is a fundamental distinction between the essential and accidental properties of a thing. Take a chair, for instance, which can be made of wood or metal—both of which are accidental to its being a chair since it is still functionally and fundamentally a chair regardless of the material from which it is made. To put this in philosophical terms, an accident is a property which has no necessary connection other than form to the essence of the thing being described. Why then do we struggle over the fact that He has chosen to appear to us in another form—that is, in the bread and in the wine?

      Now, let us dig a little deeper into this thought. Was not the fleshly, earthy body of our Lord but a temporary dwelling place awaiting a resurrected ascended body, as is the case with us also? Is not our earthly bodies a temple—a sacred place wherein as Christians dwells our invisible self; that is, our personhood? Our tripartiteness—that is, body, soul and spirit—is in no way eschatologically restricted to the accidents of temporality except by a momentary functionary design. The essence of man shall live on in another body for another day. That is the blessed hope with resides in the heart of each of us because of His efficacious sacrifice.

      Now, this is not to say that this accident of functionary temporality is unrelated to our eternal likeness; it is, however, to affirm the transiency of the accidents of our temporality in no way prevent us from achieving by Our Savior the potentiality of our personhood as new creatures in Christ. Quibbling over form is, in my opinion, quibbling over the hot air of an argumentative semantic; because in the long run the essence and sanctity of personhood is not thwarted from an eschatological perspective.

      Indeed, once again in my opinion, the essence in his begottenness as both God and man in hypostatic union is an indelible unity of eternal personhood and purpose. His eternal timelessness is therefore unaffected by the transitory accidents of history or form. The essentiality of His essence remains the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrew 13:8).

      So, is he present body, soul and divinity in the accidents bread and wine? Yes, he is; but in saying this, no one expects the bread to grow legs and walk about as a man, nor do we expect either human DNA to show up in the wine. These are but the accidents of form and shape wherein the real essence or substance lie.

    • James

      Jesus being fully God and fully man is one of the mysteries of our faith, yet you presume to fully understand it… therein lies a critical flaw in your argument.

    • Athanasius

      C. Michael,

      That Christ is truly present in the Eucharist is without doubt. You mention John 6; please go back and read it before you dismiss it so casually. The Greek word used for eat, “sarx,” literally means to “gnaw or chew.” Not only this but in Jewish culture at the time to figuratively tell someone to “eat my body” was equivalent to telling them to “bite me” (basically revile me). So Christ is telling his followers “unless you hate me you have no life within you?” This is ridiculous. Also, those who murmur and say “this is hard teaching, who can accept it” only makes sense if He is speaking literally. What is hard about accepting a symbol? It’s only hard when understood properly and that’s why Our Lord says “the spirit gives life but the flesh profits nothing,” which, contrary to Protestants who quote this to argue that He is speaking figuratively, really means: the flesh (you stupid sinful people) can’t help you get this, only the spirit (the Holy Spirit, by grace) can help you understand. And why would Our Lord let the people walk away over a symbol? Wouldn’t he say, “Hey, guys, wait, I didn’t actually mean eat my body…” He let them walk away because HE DID MEAN THAT and it is a hard teaching, a teaching one can only grasp by the grace of God and is, in the end, the true faith test of being a Christian. Some other objections to your article: 1. Why couldn’t Christ give the apostles His Real Body and Blood before His Death on Good Friday? HE’S GOD, HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS, He’s not bound by time or space. 2. The first objection isn’t applicable…no Christians have a sacrament about the vine, door, salt of the earth, you’re right these are expressions but the Holy Eucharist is a Sacrament, a “stop everything” moment and pay attention thing, not something said in passing 3. About Nestorianism, see point #1, HE IS GOD, miraculously being in a “million places at once” doesn’t somehow make him a million persons, He is, again, not bound by the laws of nature or mathematics. 4. Paul never mentions the Holy Eucharist? What? 1 Corinthians 11:27–whoever eats and drinks the Body and Blood of the Lord eats and drinks damnation upon himself…again, if it’s juts a symbol, it cannot be profaned, cannot be blasphemed. Only Our Lord, Jesus Christ Himself, can be. God bless you, brother.

    • Athanasius


      one final point on the previous post…How can you honestly square not believing in the Real Presence with the fact that every Christian from the time of Our Lord until post Martin Luther (1500 years or 75% of all Christian history) believed it? Sure, you had your pockets of heretics from the beginning, the Cathars of the 12th C for example, but all the early Church Fathers believed it and wrote passionately in defense of it. Are you really going to say that Jesus, Who is God, would let his followers be so confused on such an important teaching? That for over a thousand years God, Who personally promised His followers that the Holy Spirit would protect the Church (the Church, not 37,000 churches) from error would allow that to happen. Not in the realm of theology or dogma, just in common sense, this makes absolutely no sense at all.

      and, on your post to Irene, about “change in Church history” it’s funny you quote Cardinal Newman, who you know converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism, about Church documents because he said “anyone who wishes not to remain Catholic needs to refrain from reading Church history.” C’mon, man, be real. You really are going to argue that there was the true Church in the years 0-33 AD and then nothing until 1517? Seriously? That’s not Christianity, that sounds like Mormonism.

    • Athanasius

      Why were my posts deleted? True Christian apologetics is about discussion. What I wrote was sincere, not inflammatory or to “be a troll.” Please repost them, we, all of us Christians, need to be open and in dialogue with one another to work towards Our Lord’s hope that “all may be one.” Silencing dissent doesn’t accomplish anything. Thank you and God bless

    • connor

      🙂 jesus is a beast

    • scott Raymond

      This is a hot topic. Lesson 1 don’t criticize Catholics on it.
      I only have the sad submission that most Catholics don’t believe it:
      I used to be Catholic and I understand the sacredness of it. I like all your arguments and agree but I do not know how to proceed with this difficult area. Is it possible to accept the love devout Catholics have despite misplaced beliefs? I hope so. There are so many Christian Catholics whom I love greatly.

      • scott Raymond

        One further perhaps wrong idea why I would not rejoin Catholicism is that only priests are capable of transubstantiation. To my thinking this has human motivation. Also when I read Acts 2:46, I see people eating in their homes so between bible and early church fathers something went wrong.
        Acts 2:46 (ESV2011)
        46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts,”

    • Jaykob R Seiler

      What about a view that say, not that we eat the flesh and blood of Christ in a literal sense, that being symbolic, but that when we take communion Christ is eating with us. That is to say that communion is communion with Christ in a literal sense.

    • Andrew James Patton

      Concerning how the Man Jesus Christ can be present in tabernacles all over the world simultaneously, you error because you do not understand the nature of the glorified body. The polylocation of Christ’s Body and Blood is entirely in accord with the nature of the spiritual body, which can enter through a locked door, yet still be touched. Of old, Christian theologians testified that the resurrected body is capable of traveling to the far reaches of the universe instantaneously, needing only to intend a location in order to arrive there. They termed this property “subtilty,” yet physics that was unknown to them tells us that faster-than-light travel, teleportation, and backwards time travel are the same phenomenon observed in different reference frames. In other words, subtilty implies polylocation because it exempts the one who has it from the rules of time, space and causality as we know them.

    • Gerald Giraldi

      In recent years I have had an interest in “The Revelation of Jesus Christ” and the developement of doctrine of the Roman catholic church (RCC). Some of us know that the RCC has changed what God has Ordained and my belief is that it may have also changed what “was” written in the Gospels. In particular, in the three Gospels about the Last Supper where Jesus is “supposed” to have said “my body”, “my blood” and “do this in remembrance of me”. I think the “m” in “my” and “me” are all not capital letters which is strange to me. Also, if Jesus is supposed to be a humble person why would he say “do this in remembrance of me”? Could these three Gospels have been changed by the RCC to promote its doctrines and power and create the celebration of the “mass” to also bring pagans into its religion like was done with their change of the Ten Commandments and the teaching of the immaculate conception? As was indicated earlier in the original “Five Reasons”, the Apostle John, who recorded the “The Revelation of Jesus Christ”, did not record anything about the eucharist of the Last Supper.

    • Gerald Giraldi

      In recent years I have had an interest in “The Revelation of Jesus Christ” and the development of doctrine of the Roman catholic church (RCC). Some of us know that the RCC has changed what God has Ordained and my belief is that it may have also changed what “was” written in the Gospels. In particular, in the three Gospels about the Last Supper where Jesus is “supposed” to have said “my body”, “my blood” and “do this in remembrance of me”. I think the “m” in “my” and “me” are all not capital letters which is strange to me. Also, if Jesus is supposed to be a humble person why would he say “do this in remembrance of me”? Could these three Gospels have been changed by the RCC to promote its doctrines and power and create the celebration of the “mass” to also bring pagans into its religion like was done with their change of the Ten Commandments and the teaching of the immaculate conception? As was indicated earlier in the original “Five Reasons”, the Apostle John, who recorded the “The Revelation of Jesus Christ”, did not record anything about the eucharist of the Last Supper.

    • […] eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. [Luke 22:19-20; 24:39 & Leviticus 7:27] 56 Whoever […]

    • […] eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. [Luke 22:19-20; 24:39 & Leviticus 7:27] 56 Whoever […]

    • […] eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. [Luke 22:19-20; 24:39 & Leviticus 7:27] 56 Whoever […]

    • Sarah Preissler

      Why do we need Jesus to come back in the flesh for us to eat him , every week, if Jesus said on the cross “it is finished “ ? If his work was really finished like he said it was, why do we have to keep eating his actual flesh as though it’s not finished ……. The Holy Spirit enters us when we believe Jesus is the Christ. We have the Holy Spirit in us sealing our salvation. We don’t have to keep eating Jesus.

      No man can make Jesus come back. Not as a man, not as a waifer.
      No man knows when Jesus will come back. Only the Father knows.

    • Sarah Preissler

      Why do we need Jesus to come back in the flesh for us to eat him , every week, if Jesus said on the cross “it is finished “ ? If his work was really finished like he said it was, why do we have to keep eating his actual flesh as though it’s not finished ……. The Holy Spirit enters us when we believe Jesus is the Christ. We have the Holy Spirit in us sealing our salvation. We don’t have to keep eating Jesus.

      No man can make Jesus come back. Not as a man, not as a waifer. Any man who thinks he has the power to turn bread into God ….. is deceived.

      • Andrew James Patton

        The Passover is not finished until the Lamb is consumed. He is the Lamb of God; we must eat Him to have life in Him. Furthermore, you contradict the Scriptures concerning the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Acts 8 mentions people who believed the Gospel and were even baptized into Christ Jesus, but who did not receive the Holy Spirit until the Apostles came and laid hands on them. If you can’t even get something as basic as when Christians receive the Holy Spirit right, why should anyone listen to you on the more difficult points of doctrine?

    • Andrew James Patton

      You error because you confuse the mortal body with the resurrected body. After His Resurrection, Christ appeared in a locked room, while still able to be touched. The ability to teleport, that is, to move from one location to another instantaneously, is a property of the glorified resurrected body. Now, science tells us that faster-than-light travel, teleportation, and time travel are the same phenomenon in different reference frames. Since Christ, in His Resurrected Body, is able to teleport, He necessarily has the ability to multilocate and even travel back in time, and this is a property of His humanity.

      • C Michael Patton

        I don’t see teleporting as evidence of anything. Philip teleported from one place to another. That is something that God can do. The power of Christ can do it if he wants to teleport. I can teleport from here to your house right now, and it wouldn’t prove anything but the power of God teleported my body. It would not evidence of mingling of the attributes, which is the primary thing we are trying to avoid with the nature of Christ. We do not mingle the attributes before the resurrection, and you can’t mingle them after the resurrection. You can have a glorified body, but that simply means it’s a spiritual body with regard to its purity. It doesn’t have to take on a new nature where suddenly it does not obey the laws of physics. The laws of physics are not a bad thing either now or you’re on the new earth.

    • April Thome

      When Jesus teaches about the Judgement in Matthew 7:22-23, His words to those rejected are “I never knew you.” If the basis of salvation were to take communion, wouldn’t he have stated it? Knowing God and seeking truth serves as the foundation for abundant, eternal life that starts here on earth. Partaking of His life gives us ears to hear and eyes to see. The meaning of “partaking” has been explained in Revelation 3:20 “Behold I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him and he with Me.” For true communion to happen, no man, church or priest is involved in transferring the power of Jesus’s body to another person. Salvation does not flow through a church. Communion is between the Lord and those people he “knows.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.