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.
344 replies to "Five Reasons I Reject the Doctrine of Transubstantiation"
John seems elect not to answer my question about the difference between Flesh and Bone and Spirit so as you are a Roman Catholic could you please do me a favor Irene to explain it to me.
God bless
Well, Ebouty, I will speak for the Catholic belief, but I believe the Orthodox belief to be essentially the same, with any difference being subtle.
After the consecration, the host (“bread”) and chalice (contents) (“wine”) are the physical body and blood of Christ. An important distinction is that this is not the dead body of Christ, separated from his spirit. It is the living, resurrected body, and is his body, blood, soul (or spirit, if you will), and divinity.
You have mentioned Luke 24:39 more than once. I’m not exactly sure what you’re getting at either, but I wonder if there is a difference in understanding of terms here. When Jesus says that a “spirit” has not flesh and bones, he is explaining to the disciples that he is not a ghost, that he is not the spirit of someone who’s body is dead. He doesn’t mean that flesh and bone never has a spirit, because spirit and flesh are united in someone who has not died, and in someone who is resurrected.
“Spirit” can mean the soul of a person.
“Spirit” can mean a being with no body, as an angel, or as God the Father.
“Spirit” can also be used in English, especially older English, to mean a ghost, as in the spirit of a dead person.
You can see the connection in “ghost” and “spirit” in the name of the third person of the Trinity: Holy Spirit, or alternately, Holy Ghost.
If this is not at all what you were asking, I will try again soon.
@Ebouty: my answer is it is the literal body of Christ.
Of course, literal is just a word. If he was just spiritually present, what use is that? Christ says that where 2 or 3 gather in my name, I am there. Isn’t he always spiritually present among believers then? What added thing does the eucharist give if it just makes him spiritually present, which he already is?
As Cyril of Jerusalem says, “And since He has affirmed and said, (This is My Blood), who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?”
The substance and liquid you put into your body is not spiritual, it is physical. Thus Christ is physically present. It’s obvious because it is physical. “handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones”. A spirit neither has physical manifestation.
You ask about the meaning of “ACTUAL BODY”. What is there to say to such a question?
As Gregory of Nyssa says, “The bread is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ.”. Or as Chrysostom says “The priest standing there in the place of Christ says these words but their power and grace are from God. ‘This is My Body,’ he says, and these words transform what lies before him.”. Or as Cyril of Alexandria says, “The offerings, by the hidden power of God Almighty, are changed into Christ’s Body and Blood”. Or as Augustine says, “That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ.” or as Marcarius the Magnesian says “[Christ] took the bread and the cup, each in a similar fashion, and said: ‘This is My Body and this is My Blood.’ Not a figure of His body nor a figure of His blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ”.
What more is there to say on such topic, than these words by the holy fathers? If one added even more explanation, you still would not be satisfied.
I believe this understanding was already well entrenched by the time the book of John was written, and that’s why John gives the dialogue of John 6. “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will araise him up on the last day. “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.” etc.
I think as time went on, some in the Church were struggling with the concept, and John decided to document this dialogue, with “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?”, as a teaching to those who struggle.
As far as I see, it’s no coincidence that the belief in real presence is very very early, and John wrote this to deal with dissent.
Wow, isn’t that all funny? O.K, I will not going to laugh until I respond to all your comments or posts.
God bless
I just remember one Sunday during the mass when a Priest told people who were present not to forget the presence of the Holy Spirit because people seems to forget about the Holy Spirit.
God bless
Thanks Irene, but one more thing. Because in your post you only explain Spirit. So please explain the word Flesh in order to make my response to you.
God bless
@Ebouty,
Ok–“flesh” is a word that can have different meanings, too.
“Flesh” can mean the meat of an animal you eat.
“Flesh” can mean the body, as “in my flesh, I will see God”
“Flesh” can mean the baser/lower part of our human nature, as in pleasing the flesh instead of obeying God.
So when we say The Eucharist is Jesus’s body, we mean the substance. It takes up space.
Hope that helps a little.
Right Irene, and I will post here a definition that I received from a Catholic Priest for you:
“… Well, as the words words indicate, “spirit” is immaterial and not visible to the eye. It is real, of course, but not visible. “Flesh and bone” are obviously material which can be see and felt.”
I will respond to your post with John soon.
God bless
***** He doesn’t mean that flesh and bone never has a spirit, because spirit and flesh are united in someone who has not died, and in someone who is resurrected. ******
Yes you are absolutely 100% right, and that is the reason why Jesus told His disciples and I quote:
“But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send to you.”
Is Jesus going away only in Spirit and not in His human nature or only in His human nature but not in Spirit? No, and as I said you are right: He doesn’t mean that flesh and bone never has a spirit, because spirit and flesh are united in someone who has not died, and in someone who is resurrected.
But what so funny is that you absolutely contradict yourself don’t you know that? You said the Spirit and flesh of a living being and one who is resurrected cannot be separated. Really? Are you sure of what you said? And why then your Church claims that after the consecration the bread becomes flesh of Christ in a literal sense? Is that not contradicting your belief? John said literal is just a word. So is that means literal is just a word without any weight or meaning? By the way, what does the word flesh means to you Irene? An invisible, immaterial and untouchable? I asked that because you said one thing right but on the other hand you mean to something else. You need to read this quotation from one of a Church Father:
“The soul became flesh that the soul might become visible. Well, then, did the flesh likewise become soul that the flesh might be manifested? If the soul is flesh, it is no longer soul, but flesh. If the flesh is soul, it is no longer flesh, but soul.”
Now why don’t you see the reason Jesus said that it is for their good that he should go? Is not that a kind of a farewell speech from the Lord God Jesus Christ? The disciples don’t want Him to go. But remember He was with them at that time both in His Two Nature; divine and human, in other words, they can see Him, touching Him, eating with Him etc and also can disappear from them, entering any house through the lock door. And the reason they don’t want Him to go, I believe, is because they knew they won’t see Him again in His physicality or maybe they were afraid of being live without Him. But what did Jesus said? He said, “It is for your good that I should go because if I don’t the Advocator will not come. But who exactly that Advocator is? He is the Holy Spirit or Spirit if you like. Then who is that Spirit? Paul says in His letter to the Corinthians:
“Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” (2 Corinthians 3:17)
Now Irene could you please tell me who is that Lord?
“And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” (Act 1:10-11)
That passage shows us that the same Jesus (i.e. Jesus with flesh and spirit) shall come in like manner as He was ascended. So we know that His coming in Glory is in like manner when He departed them. And that is the only proof from the scripture that Jesus will come again in flesh and Spirit if I’m right, or in both of His Nature.
Why then those two men stood by them does not say, “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall come in the manner of the bread after the Priest consecrated it?
Jesus ascended into Heaven both Human and Divine. He said that it is better for Him to go otherwise the Comforter will not come. Now after the ascension the Holy Spirit dwells amongst believers as the Lord God Jesus Christ promised.
The Bible teaches us that only Christ’s divine nature is omnipresent, not His human nature, which consisted of the flesh. So, you can’t have it both ways. But what the Catholics and the Orthodox have is both. But surprisingly, in the mass there is nothing we can see that really mean flesh even though they insist that there is. So what I come to believe is that you didn’t see the difference here for some reasons I don’t understand. And one more thing; do you see the problem you have? That is a deviation from the decision of the Council of Chalcedon and more likely an absolute breaching of the hypostatic union decided by that Council. Do you understand the Chalcedon definition right? Then better to think about it.
Now John said:
*******Of course, literal is just a word. If he was just spiritually present, what use is that? Christ says that where 2 or 3 gather in my name, I am there. Isn’t he always spiritually present among believers then? What added thing does the Eucharist give if it just makes Him spiritually present, which he already is? ********
What did John said? John what did you say? What use is that if Jesus present in the Eucharist only in spirit? Wow, do you realize what you have just said? Isn’t that a blasphemy, a kind of looking down and an ignorance of the Spirit?
So are you trying to tell me that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist spiritually is no use if it only in Spirit? Is God not Spirit? Who is God from the beginning of all things? By the way, does not the presence of the Holy Spirit involve the presence of the Father and the Son? Do you really understand the meaning of Trinity or not?
Let me quote another Church Father for you:
“For he who does not believe the Spirit does not believe in the Son, and he who has not believed in the Son does not believe in the Father. For none “can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost,”and “No man hath seen God at any time, but the only begotten God which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”
See? So it looks like you are one amongst those people in this world who ignore the presence, importance and the role He (Spirit) or even not heard of Him, and what can I say to those who say that? Their belief is not in full harmony with the teaching of the scripture, and that of course comes from their other belief in a Tradition of men that they claim to have the same authority with the infallible scripture. In reality they did not fully believe in the Son, Jesus Christ, because they don’t believe in the Spirit. In Act 19:2 it says and I quote:
“…and he said unto them, Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed? And they said unto him, Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was given.”
I believe that that is the kind of situation you live in it now.
You also said “What added thing does the Eucharist give if it just makes Him spiritually present, which he already is?” Wow you actually don’t understand anything especially on the doctrine of Trinity or Holy Spirit in particular.
John, there are so many added things the Eucharist gave if it just makes Him spiritually present, which you said He already did, but the most important one is life. First, in this life: “In the realm of nature it is the role of the Holy Spirit to give life to all animate creatures, whether on the ground or in the sky and sea, for “When you send forth your Spirit, they are created” (Ps. 104:30). Conversely, if God “should take back his spirit to himself, and gather to himself his breath, all flesh would perish together, and man would return to dust” (Job 34:14 – 15). Here we see the role of the Spirit in the giving and sustaining of human and animal life.”
Secondly, which is the reason for the incarnation and the Atonement is the life after this life, an eternal life.
“If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you” (Rom. 8:11).
The Spirit of Christ dwells among Believers and only believers are only people who gathered in His Name and have life.
Do you really believe eating the flesh will give you life? I believe St. Augustine will answer that question for you.
“What then if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before?” What meaneth this? “Doth this offend you?” “Do ye imagine that I am about to make divisions of this My Body which ye see; and to cut up My Members, and give them to you? ‘What then if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before?’” Assuredly, He who could ascend Whole could not be consumed.”
“But then this shall be, that is, the Body and the Blood of Christ shall be each man’s Life; if what is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in the truth itself eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually. For we have heard the Lord Himself saying, “It is the Spirit That quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken unto you, are Spirit and Life. But there are some of you,” saith He, “that believe not.”
Therefore “it is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing,” as they understood the flesh, but not so do I give my flesh to be eaten.
“Jesus answered and said Verily, verily, I say unto you, ye seek me, not because ye saw the signs, but because ye have eaten of my loaves.” Ye seek me for the sake of the flesh not for the sake of the spirit.
God is Spirit and if you take earthly things and said it is His Body, because you really don’t understand the hidden meaning of His word when He said “This is my Body,” then you put your own self into trouble.
I can see a proof to my point especially by the Roman Catholic Church only for I haven’t deal previously with an Orthodox to know whether they did the same or not. The proof I was talking about is the worshiping of the Host or sacramental signs, believing that Jesus in His physicality confined in a monstrance under the power of the Priest. So if that the case, then we have two physical bodies of Christ; one is in heaven and the other in the monstrance. Oh! No, no. Not only two but maybe more than a thousand throughout the world, which in fact that can only be happened with His Spirit of being as one of His character known as omnipresence.
Before I end here I like to share the word of God to you my brothers and Sisters. If those verses I will share with you are not relevant to our issue here, but believe me there is much greater in reading it than not to. Here are some verses I took from Paul’s Epistle to the Romans chapter 8:
“For they that are after the flesh mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.”
“For the mind of the flesh is death; but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace:”
“But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”
The reason I qoute those passages because you only believe that if the Spirit has no flesh then it of no use. But your belief is inconsistent with the Word of God.
Remember I’m just a Truth Seeker and I appreciate any comments if I end up wrong in some place from both side Protestant and others.
God bless all
“λάβετε φάγετε· τοῦτό μού ἐστι τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν κλώμενον·” That’s enough for me. Even after 2000 years, “is” means “is.” Not “becomes,” not “represents.” “Is.” Taste and see that the Lord is good! To God be the Glory!
@Ebouty, I really think you should answer the question of how come you are allowed to make posts of unlimited length, and the rest of us poor slobs are limited to 2000 characters.
You quote “Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you”. I’m not sure what milage you are trying to get here. We are not told here how long he plans to go away for. Neither are we told much about what “go away means”, or in what sense he is going. Do you not believe that he is present? Where 2 or 3 gather in my name, etc? If so, why are you any better off?
Neither do you tell us what your position is here. Are you claiming that Jesus’ flesh and spirit ARE separated, thus Jesus can be in the Eucharist in spirit, not in flesh? Why is that a compelling position to hold, especially in light of the importance of the doctrine of the bodily resurrection? “handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones”..
You don’t tell us why belief in the real presence is supposed to contradict a belief that soul and body are not separated.
You quote “Now the Lord is that Spirit” (2 Corinthians 3:17). But you don’t tell us what you think it means. Looking at a range of Protestant commentaries, I don’t see anything that supports you. For example, Clarke commentary: “the word to pneuma, spirit, evidently signifies the Gospel”.
You quote Act 1:10-11, but you don’t tell us why your position that he is already here in the eucharist in spirit is better reconciled with it. Nor do you tell us how your position is tenable that Jesus is now separated from his body, given the trouble he went to to be resurrected and reunited with his body.
You say “The Bible teaches us that only Christ’s divine nature is omnipresent, not His human nature, which consisted of the flesh”.
Chapter and verse please? Actually the bible says very little about such topics. Even if we accept your proposition, having your body widely distributed is not omnipresence.
Your question “So are you trying to tell me that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist spiritually is no use if it only in Spirit?” is being obtuse, because you don’t tell us how, if he is spiritually present ANYWAY, how he can be doubly spiritually present in the eucharist?
Is that what the bible teaches and we are called to understand from sola scriptura? Double presence? Really?
You ask “does not the presence of the Holy Spirit involve the presence of the Father and the Son? Do you really understand the meaning of Trinity or not?”
Umm, yes I understand it. Don’t think you do though. The presence of the Holy Spirit does not by necessity imply the presence of the other two persons. Didn’t you just lecture us on “Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you”.
You say “there are so many added things the Eucharist gave if it just makes Him spiritually present, which you said He already did, but the most important one is life”.
Well, the bible doesn’t say “unless you eat my spirit, there is no life in you”. It says “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood there is no life in you”. Think I’ll stick with the bible, thanks.
You quote Augustine “It is the Spirit That quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing”. Really? Does acontextual protestant quoting reaching such a zenith? This quote has NOTHING to do with the Eucharist. It doesn’t even have anything to do with anything, about Christ’s body. Was Christ in error to resurrect his body since “the flesh profiteth nothing”. That’s about as sensible as the conclusion you are coming to.
You say “So if that the case, then we have two physical bodies of Christ; one is in heaven and the other in the monstrance.”
This is silliness. If I cut off your finger Ebouty, and put it in a monstrance, do you now have 2 physical bodies?
I believe you mean 1 Cor. 11:24, and if I’m right then you actually base your belief in the word “IS”.
There are some examples I would like to use that will make my point apparent concerning the interpretation on such a passage you gave.
Take for instance, in Luke 8:11. Jesus said: The seed is the word of God’ (Luke 8:11). The notion I would like to share with you is only concerned with the word “is”. Let me quote Jim Seghers’ (Catholics) article called “This is my body”. He made a comment regarding “This is my body” that there is no linguistic basis for claiming that the word “is” in the institution narratives means “symbolizes” or that “this” refers to the bread.”
How about going back to our example above and refer to the word “is” used by Jesus in those passages? Did the word “is” in Matthew 26:26 and other Synoptic gospels differ with “is” in Luke 18:11 or in 1 Cor. 11:24? We all know that in Luke 18:11 Jesus said the seed “is” the word of God. So, how about when we said that there is no linguistic basis too on this narrative to mean the seed represents the word of God, thus the seed is actually the word of God? So any seeds you come across are the word of God in a literal sense. Am I right? Did the seed in Luke 8:11 is actually the word of God like “This is my body”? What do you think? Because mine says No, and I think you will agree with me too that the seed is not the word of God but indeed represents the word of God.
By the way, why not looking for other passages in the scripture, like what others did, that will solve this controversial issue rather than using reason (wisdom of men) that Augustine regards it as a dangerous practice? St. Augustine wrote:
“When, however, a meaning is evolved of such a kind that what is doubtful in it cannot be cleared up by indubitable evidence from Scripture, it remains for us to make it clear by the evidence of reason. But this is a dangerous practice. For it is far safer to walk by the light of Holy Scripture; so that when we wish to examine the passages that are obscured by metaphorical expressions, we may either obtain a meaning about which there is no controversy, or if a controversy arises, may settle it by the application of testimonies sought out in every portion of the same Scripture.”
“If the sentence . . . SEEMS TO ENJOIN A CRIME OR VICE. . . it is FIGURATIVE. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” THIS SEEMS TO ENJOIN A CRIME OR A VICE; it is therefore a FIGURE, ENJOINING THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A SHARE IN THE SUFFERING OF OUR LORD, and that we should RETAIN A SWEET AND AND PROFITABLE MEMORY of the fact that His FLESH was wounded and crucified for us.”
God bless
*****Neither do you tell us what your position is here. Are you claiming that Jesus’ flesh and spirit ARE separated, thus Jesus can be in the Eucharist in spirit, not in flesh? Why is that a compelling position to hold, especially in light of the importance of the doctrine of the bodily resurrection? “handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones”.. *****
I was interested first in go forth to respond to this one and then I will deal with the rest later as you know I’m not a Scholar who can respond quickly.
First thing you need to do John in order to answer your question is study the two Nature of Christ. See what difference or what does it really mean by Human Nature and Divine Nature according to the definition of Chalcedon or what are the characteristics of Divine and Human. Second Study Trinity,especially on Pneumatology (if I’m right) and you will see how important Spirit is.
God bless
John, I just read your respond fully and its so funny. I will deal with it later and tell you how it’s funny. So be patient.
God bless
Luke 8:11 – “The seed is the Word of God. Since this was a parable, I would answer the question “Yes, the seed in the parable is the Word of God; see Isa 55:11.
So Ebouty, are you saying we should learn how to interpret Scripture correctly from the Church Fathers?
I will try first to explain that passage according to my opinion. Unfortunately, I haven’t read the all chapter, and it was wrong to take the passage out of context, but just for now I will try, but if that wasn’t right then I appreciate everyone advice.
The passage goes like this:
“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:11)
Now, if we take that and apply to the Redemption story of our Lord Jesus Christ, then it will appear to have some consistency. God has a design in giving his Word to people, and we all know that the Word is Jesus Christ (John 1:14). He gave His Son (His word) for the life of the world. And Jesus Christ would have to accomplish that design which in fact He did, because the Father does not please to receive void.
Jesus said “This is my Body” yet what He was truly referring to when He said that is not yet to come. He told the disciples to do that in remembrance of the work He was about to accomplish, few more hours or few more days to come.
The Word which we all understand what it means is Jesus Christ, and that that comes from His mouth shall not return void. In other word Jesus (the Word) must accomplish what God has design which He pleased with, like I said before. Fortunately, Jesus accomplished that once and for all on the cross thus He did not returned to the Father void or without accomplishing the design that pleased Him; redemption of mankind from the sin of the world.
So if we think what we believe that the bread is the literal Body of Christ, then we are wrong. We have to do that in remembrance of Him, and what we now have to offer is our praise and thanksgiving which that cannot be void if received by God when knowing that we truly believe in His design.
More imperative for us not to have such though is because if we did, in believing that we must continue to offer Christ literally, because that pleased Him and that is His word that shall not return to Him void then we are of some kind of a wrongful though that Jesus didn’t accomplish His work that pleased the Father, so His incarnation has no use.
I really appreciate some advice.
God bless
******So Ebouty, are you saying we should learn how to interpret Scripture correctly from the Church Fathers?****
Irene in order for me to answer your question, please answer this first. Are the Church Fathers infallible?
God bless
Now let me try again to make my point obvious. What I said here has nothing to do with your questions such as how long Jesus plans to go away or defining the meaning of “go away” etc.
John, I think you haven’t considered my point seriously, and that’s the reason why your own-self logic won’t tell you.
So bear with me very carefully, because I will tell you what my logic knows on the “go away” meaning. The “Go away” means the disappearance of Jesus in His visible human being from the eyes of men. Here it does not mean for the two Natures to be separated. The visible will no longer visible, for He would ascend, but the Spirit, the invisible one, on the other hand will do all the rest of the work, that Jesus had promised to His disciples, and that Spirit is the Lord which I will explain how that Spirit is the Lord.
You even asked me; do you not believe that He is present? John don’t you understand what faith is? How can I not believe when Jesus said: “Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”
I haven’t seen Jesus in flesh but you know what I believe His Gospel or if you like His Spirit that He did present among those who have the assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen; that is faith (Heb 11:1).
Jesus said after dealing with Thomas’ unbelief; “Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” (John 20:29) The “have not seen” here, according to my opinion, refer to the work of Him and secondly, of the visibility of His Body in which Thomas has just believed because He saw the proof in Christ’s humanity.
You said: “You don’t tell us why belief in the real presence is supposed to contradict a belief that soul and body are not separated” Really? That’s really absurd and I’m not interested to answer it, because I believe you really don’t understand what the difference between Jesus’ two Natures describe in the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. But don’t worry you will understand from me later.
******You quote “Now the Lord is that Spirit” (2 Corinthians 3:17). But you don’t tell us what you think it means. Looking at a range of Protestant commentaries, I don’t see anything that supports you. For example, Clarke commentary: “the word to pneuma, spirit, evidently signifies the Gospel*******
I kind of agreeing with what you said that the Spirit “signifies” or “is” the Gospel, but isn’t the Gospel the Word, the Word of God or the Word of life? And what is that Word? In the Gospel of John it says: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1) John (the Apostle) does not end up there, he continues to explain who that Word is and I quote: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14). Then who is that word that dwells among us? Is not our Lord Jesus Christ? I truly believe He is. So Spirit and Gospel or word all referred to Jesus Christ.
“But turning to the Lord is entering into this covenant, for the “Lord is that Spirit.” The Spirit is Christ’s presence with us.”
John the rest of your comments are untenable, and I don’t know what to say.
You say “The Bible teaches us that only Christ’s divine nature is omnipresent, not His human nature, which consisted of the flesh” Chapter and verse please? Actually the bible says very little about such topics. Even if we accept your proposition, having your body widely distributed is not omnipresence.
Wait a minute what do you mean by “your proposition”? What is my proposition? Can you please explain it to me? So are you telling me that Jesus has three Natures instead of two; (1) Human (flesh and bone), (2) Human (flesh and bone) but invisible and (3) Divine Nature?
You are right having a body widely distributed is not omnipresence, because it’s impossible unless is in the form of a God or deity, the Spirit.
Here are some passages from the Bible showing His omnipresent character while He was still on earth:
“Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.” (John 1:48)
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matt.18:20)
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. (Matt. 28:20)
And here are some passages from the scripture showing His physical body unable to be omnipresent:
And he spake to his disciples, that a little boat should wait on him because of the crowd, lest they should throng him: (Mark 3:9)
Mary, therefore, when she came where Jesus was, and saw him, fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. (John 11:32)
The Body that Jesus took when He emptied Himself is the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men, and being found in appearance as a man (Phil. 2:5-8). For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form (Col. 2:9)
And that is the form or kind of Nature the Council of Chalcedon referred to. Not the form which is the flesh and bone, but invisible.
“But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.”
And that, I believe, is the reason why He took that form, to taste death for everyone, because His divinity cannot taste death.
So what you are trying to tell us John is something that is logically impossible. You are transferring one to the other, and that really and absolutely contradicting the Hypostatic Union. Are you admitting that the two natures in Christ are not mixed or confounded, yet maintain that the attributes of the one are transferred to the other? Remember the properties or attributes of a substance constitute its essence, so that if they be removed or if others of a different nature be added to them, the substance itself is changed. In your Transubstantiation nothing changed.
I truly believed that you did not adhered to the doctrine as it had been settled in the Council of Chalcedon, maintaining that there is such an essential difference between the divine and human natures that the one could not become the other, and that the one was not capable of receiving the attributes of the other, though you still claim to be orthodoxy.
I understand that Jesus Christ the son of the Virgin Mary is a divine person, but denied that his human nature was. So let me ask you guys; Romanism, Orthodox and Lutherans how can the body of Christ (flesh and blood; visible, touchable, material) which is in heaven be in many different places at the same time?
Finally according to Charles Hodge he said:
“A body which fills immensity is not a human body. A soul which is omniscient, omnipresent, and almighty, is not a human soul. The Christ of the Bible and of the human heart is lost if this doctrine (the doctrine of both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation, emphasis mine) be true.”
God bless us all
There are two forms of oral Traditions in my opinion; one is from flesh and blood (wisdom of men) and the other is from God. So for the former Yes, Mat 10:40 is a command to stop holding to men’s tradition. Have you not read Gal 1:6-8? Paul says and I quote:
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.”
Does Paul or Peter mention the idea of Transubstantiation in all their epistles? Did they teach the veneration or worshiping of images and idols? So what happen if they are not in their teaching and know that such traditions just existed many centuries later after the Apostles? For those who hold on such false teachings let them be anathema, because those teachings or traditions are not from them, but a later diversion and not doctrinal development. So do you think those who were goes before such developments are not safe, because they did not complete the message of the Gospel?
Now for the other one, where can we find those oral traditions while the Apostles no longer in this world and cannot trust those who claim to posses such an authority of Tradition? The only place we shall look in for that tradition of the Apostles is in the scripture. And why should I believe that? It is the Word of God that we all agreed on, and that oral tradition later put into a written form as Irenaeus says so.
Wait a minute, why did Paul says though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema to the Church in Galatia? Is there something not right? Yes there is. So in asking me did the church was in apostasy from AD 30 onward? Yes, there’s an apostasy that Paul refuted and such a practice continues until now.
You said also “Firstly I would take it that Jesus is expressing a general principle. If they accept me, they’ll accept the ones I sent,You.
If I’m right, how can they accept Jesus without first accepting those He sent? I think you twisted what really Jesus said to His disciples. But what you said is true when Jesus lives on earth. In fact, Jesus did not say that, and what He said is as follows:
He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. That is why Paul says: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.”
The “you” is the disciples or Apostles and “me” is Jesus. And furthermore, if then they received Jesus after hearing the words of the Apostles they received the Father. How odd for you in trying to put Mat 10:40 into your own context.
How do you received Jesus John? Do you receive Him from the tradition the Apostles never mentioned in their writings? In what way you come to know how Jesus died. Did you receive Jesus without hearing first the words of those whom He sent? You just, by accident, miracles or vision came to know Him without first hearing the word from the scripture, right? Can you honestly tell me how you come to know Him?
You continue from your illogical opinion in saying: “The principle extends that if they accept you, they’ll accept the ones you send too, ad infinitum.” I agree with that but if those whom you claim to be sent by the Apostles continue to pass on such teaching and some, centuries later, diverted from their (Apostles) teaching what will happen then? So the solution for not getting caught in some short of such a diversion, which some claim as a doctrinal development, is to check with the infallible scripture, because that was truly come not from the flesh and blood of the Apostles, but directly from God.
So, what grounds are we going to accept those who were sent by the Apostles? What about those who were mentioned in Gal 1? Are they not being sent or being taught too by the Apostles orally? And why did they so quickly removed from Jesus’ true Gospel? I believe they did, because they hold on to their own traditions, even though they actually received first-hand tradition from the Apostles.
You are absolutely right in your second point, but you didn’t consider other possible consequences that can happen. Take for instance, let consider the case of the church in Galatia. They had been given the authority of Tradition, right? And why they still have troubles? Fortunately, Paul heard what they did and that is why he corrected them in a letter. And imagine what will happen then to other churches if Paul or other Apostles did not know that they were being led to another Gospel, are they going to continue on the right path? I don’t think so. Aren’t they going to confuse with their traditions? I believe those churches will confront each other on the issue of their oral traditions. So let me quote this:
“But as controversies arose, and disputants on both sides of all questions appealed to “tradition,” i.e., to what they had been taught; and when it was found that these traditions differed, one church saying their teachers had always taught them one thing, and another that theirs had taught them the opposite, it was felt that there should be some common and authoritative standard.”
Remember John, we are human beings, and human beings are the kind that they cannot be satisfied with what they have at hand. They want to get more, hardly to be filled fully. And that is what happened to the church in Galatia. Even though they had received what they had been taught first-hand, they wanted more thus some people who are not actually chosen by the Lord, but are chosen by the Apostles to continue spreading what they received leads the people away from the true gospel to their own. So is your principle works in this situation? Absolutely not, but let me tell you, it will if you stick to the infallible scripture, the only available evangelical and apostolical Traditions left.
Now is the worship of Mary or images and many more diversion or development which are in progress many centuries after the Apostles are one of their tradition? I ask you this because nowhere in the scripture mentioned or to be found and if they are truly comes originally from the oral Tradition of the Apostles then show me a source, an earliest one, maybe from Polycarp or Irenaeus or those before them which I believe they are much closer to the spring?
Therefore, I repeat my question that you try to avoid; can anyone of your Patriarchs’ writings be included as part of the existing canon? They should be, if I take your words, because they are the one as you said earlier “if they accept me, they’ll accept the ones I sent, you.”
God bless
******Your question “So are you trying to tell me that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist spiritually is no use if it only in Spirit?” is being obtuse, because you don’t tell us how, if he is spiritually present ANYWAY, how he can be doubly spiritually present in the eucharist? *******
How can the Spirit be double? Are you kidding me? It seems that you are telling me that the Spirit is like a human being too that countable.
First, the indwelling of the Spirit in every believer is the fruit of the redemption work of our Lord Jesus Christ. And by faith that Spirit of Truth; whom the world cannot receive; for it beholdeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: we they Him, for He abideth with them, shall be in them ‘ John 14:16, 17. Therefore, the indwelling of that Spirit can be recognized only by faith, not by eating.
So in the case of the Zwinglian, if I’m right, anyone who truly believes (have faith) in the redeeming work of the Lord had the Spirit abide in him, because as Paul says in his letter, to the Corinthians and I quote: ‘Know ye not that ye are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?’ -1 Cor. 3:16. Because of that already presence, what you did in the Lord Supper is in fact a remembrance of that redeeming work. In other words, it is a remembrance feast for what the Lord has done for us, and we must do that because our Lord commanded us to do:
“If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments: and I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, even the Spirit of truth” (John 14:15,16)
John what will you do if you lost someone you dearly love so much? Aren’t you going to spare one special day for him or her in remembrance of him or her? I believe Christians did that by dedicating a special day called Easter in remembrance of that redeeming work. But wait a minute isn’t a different oral traditions raised some disputation on the issue of when it suppose to be held? Never mind.
Concerning what you said of doubling the Spirit, which I don’t believe you can say it aren’t you doubling more times in the process of the mass, because in Transubstantiation all the humanity and divinity of Christ are present. When you eat the bread, according to your teaching, you eat flesh, soul and Spirit isn’t that a natural doubling instead of spiritual doubling?
So how about doing it as a remembrance only, did you attempt any double presence there? How did you come up with that mysterious idea John? Where did you get that idea of double spirit?
St. Chrysostom says and I quote: “And He gives thanks, to teach us how we ought to celebrate this sacrament, and to show that not unwillingly doth He come to the passion, and to teach us whatever we may suffer to bear it thankfully, thence also suggesting good hopes.”
On the other hand, attacking your mysterious belief on the double presence from the Reformed Churches perspective, if I’m right too, is again so simple, the same, I believe, with the Zwinglian. The Spirit has no essence of Humanity, thus uncountable. Can you count how many Spirit are there when you all eat? Don’t confuse yourself with the soul of a human being. Here we are talking about the Spirit of God.
*******Umm, yes I understand it. Don’t think you do though. The presence of the Holy Spirit does not by necessity imply the presence of the other two persons. Didn’t you just lecture us on “Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you.”*********
What did you say John? The presence of the Holy Spirit does not by necessity imply the presence of the other two persons? Wow, is that the teaching of your Orthodox Church?
And by the way, I will shortly reply to your comment here and then proceed to that one and the rest of yours: Didn’t you just lecture us on “Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you? Yes I did, and I explain that clearly in my other post saying: The visible will no longer visible, but the Spirit, the invisible one, on the other hand will do all the rest of the work, that Jesus had promised to His disciples.
John, in the Scripture alone we are told that the divine names of the Holy Spirit shows that He is God. I will try to lecture you on some passages from the scripture which I believe you haven’t read as based on your ignorance of the presence of the other two persons of the Trinity.
The Spirit or Holy Spirit is God, and how do I know? “But Peter said, ‘Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost….Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.’” Acts 5:3-4. The Spirit is called “Lord.” Again how do I know it? “But we. . . are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.” 2 Cor. 3:18. The Spirit is equal with the Father and the Son. How? “…baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Matt. 28:19. Now, do you want me to explain what I mean in those passages? Not now, but let the Spirit teach you.
God bless
@Ebouty: “You are transferring one to the other, and that really and absolutely contradicting the Hypostatic Union. ”
Firstly, you don’t tell us why distributing his body widely is omnipresence. I’m assuming that is your objection, because you don’t spell it out.
Secondly, there is a UNION. I mean, I presume Jesus’ human body uttered “when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.”, and yet, at least according to your theory, it was his divine nature who actually saw it, not his human body. That’s what happens when there is a UNION.
Similarly, Jesus rose up again his human body, after it was dead. Not something that human bodies do all alone. So if you want to argue that the divine nature can’t make a human body do a particular thing, otherwise it destroys the “hypostatic union”, you’d better have a VERY good argument. Very good.
As far as one nature receiving the “attributes of the other”, I don’t think anything has definitively set out what parts of each nature are absolutely and unalterably an attribute of one or the other. Certainly divinity is a certain thing which is unalterably different to humanity. But quantifying those things for our feeble human brains? I don’t think you’re qualified to go down that road.
“So let me ask you guys; Romanism, Orthodox and Lutherans how can the body of Christ (flesh and blood; visible, touchable, material) which is in heaven be in many different places at the same time?”
I’m sure if we took out a microscope, and a DNA analyser, we’d find particles of your skin everywhere you’ve been. At home, at your workplace, at your friend’s places. Are you omnipresent?
Isn’t that funny? Insisting on the corruption of the Hypostatic Union. I think I had to bow my head my friend because you cannot understand what we are trying to argue here and it will be a waste of time. But before I decide on that, just simply and honestly tell me what kind of Nature the Council of Chalcedon defined.
God bless
@Ebouty: “but if those whom you claim to be sent by the Apostles continue to pass on such teaching and some, centuries later, diverted from their (Apostles) teaching what will happen then?”
That would be unacceptable of course. Which is why we rely on the pillar and foundation of the truth, the church, to keep safe the deposit of faith.
You have NO WAY of knowing what that deposit of faith is without, in some fashion, consulting the church. At least I assume you weren’t walking along one day and had a bible fall out of the sky on your head. Someone told you what the deposit of faith is. They might have got it wrong, especially if they were from a heterodox group, but someone gave you that information.
“So, what grounds are we going to accept those who were sent by the Apostles? What about those who were mentioned in Gal 1? Are they not being sent or being taught too by the Apostles orally? And why did they so quickly removed from Jesus’ true Gospel? I believe they did, because they hold on to their own traditions, even though they actually received first-hand tradition from the Apostles.”
That’s true. So you need to compare what one person says came from the apostles, with the opinion of the universal church. That applies whether your source is written or oral. You don’t escape the conundrum.
“Paul heard what they did and that is why he corrected them in a letter. ”
Yes he did correct them with a letter. That’s not to say he always did so with a letter. I mean, the very fact that the letter refers to earlier oral teaching shows that he wasn’t wedded to the written form.
@Ebouty: ““But as controversies arose, and disputants on both sides of all questions appealed to “tradition,” i.e., to what they had been taught; and when it was found that these traditions differed, one church saying their teachers had always taught them one thing, and another that theirs had taught them the opposite, it was felt that there should be some common and authoritative standard.”
Yes, there was a movement to standardise both scripture and extra-scriptural things. Thus, over centuries, the canon became more standard, and doctrine became clarified in ecumenical councils, and church rules became standardised in canons. It wasn’t purely about scripture.
” So is your principle works in this situation? Absolutely not,”
It works no less well than your theory, with multiple and erroneous lists of holy books circulating, some of them heretical. Arguing about written sources of authority vs oral sources is the same epistemological problem, until the church expresses its authority on which is true and which isn’t.
“Now is the worship of Mary or images and many more diversion or development which are in progress many centuries after the Apostles are one of their tradition?”
Putting aside your polemical characterisation of “worshipping Mary”, the earliest liturgical sources seem to indicate belief in intercession of the saints, and the earliest archaeological sources seem to indicate a love for iconography. We wouldn’t really expect a lot of discussion by the apostles on the departed NT saints, when there weren’t many yet.
The question for you is why these things were present in the early church, and yet little controversy is recorded till much much later. Did nobody at all receive a different tradition from the apostles?
Before commenting on my posts, please just answer my question that I ask you. What kind of Nature the Council of Chalcedon defined?
God bless
******That would be unacceptable of course. Which is why we rely on the pillar and foundation of the truth, the church, to keep safe the deposit of faith.*******
“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards,John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”
“But it is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. …since the “pillar and ground” of the church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars…From this fact, it is evident that the Logos, the fashioner (demiourgos) of all, he that sits on the cherubim and holds all things together, when he was manifested to humanity, gave us the gospel under four forms but bound together by one spirit.” (Against Heresies 3.11.8)
I will explain more on that when you answer my question.
God bless
“can anyone of your Patriarchs’ writings be included as part of the existing canon? ”
They aren’t regarded as the canon of scripture, but many are regarded as important parts of the tradition of the church.
“How can the Spirit be double? Are you kidding me?”
Great, so if he can’t be doubly present, and he is already present ANYWAY, that means the eucharist is NOTHING in your theology. Just a Zwinglian remembrance. There is no special presence. It’s just some food that might trigger some memories in you.
“I believe Christians did that by dedicating a special day called Easter in remembrance of that redeeming work.”
Oh dear, you don’t follow church traditions like Easter do you?
“When you eat the bread, according to your teaching, you eat flesh, soul and Spirit isn’t that a natural doubling instead of spiritual doubling?”
Not sure what you’re getting at.
“Where did you get that idea of double spirit?”
Got it from you. You said the Spirit is always present, then you claimed he is present in the eucharist. Strange.
“The presence of the Holy Spirit does not by necessity imply the presence of the other two persons? Wow, is that the teaching of your Orthodox Church?”
It’s the teaching of every trinitarian church.
“in the Scripture alone we are told that the divine names of the Holy Spirit shows that He is God. ”
He is God, but he is not the Father, nor is he the Son. That is confounding the persons. Haven’t you see this diagram:
http://www.quora.com/Christianity/What-is-the-best-way-to-explain-the-Trinity-to-others
The father is not the son, is not the spirit.
Something similar used to be on stained glass windows in Latin. Pater est deus. Filius est deus. Spiritus sanctus est deus. Pater non est filius, non est spiritus sanctus. The father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God. The Father is not the son, is not the spirit.
******Great, so if he can’t be doubly present, and he is already present ANYWAY, that means the eucharist is NOTHING in your theology. Just a Zwinglian remembrance. There is no special presence. It’s just some food that might trigger some memories in you. *******
I told you John you are like someone I made an argument on the same subject and even though he was fail, he keep on insisting.
Why so ignorant to the true fact? Never mind but are you trying to pretend that you did not hear me asking you to define the Hypostatic Union according to Calcedon?
Is the Spirit countable like you can count visible things?
God bless
******There is no special presence. ******
John what special presence? Superstitious presence? aren’t you so funny? Wow.
God bless you
******The father is not the son, is not the spirit *****
You are right, the father is not the Son, but He is God. The Son is not the Father, but He is God. the Holy Spirit is not the Son but He is God. The Holy Spirit is not the Father, but He is God and so on.
So John it seems to me that you took it this way; are you trying to tell me that there are three Gods instead of one? So if one dwells on earth the other two were sleeping in heaven and when the Spirit, maybe who was on duty return from His tour He report then to the Son and then the Son start His next tour? Because His (Spirit) presence on earth the Son does not know about, right? Is not that funny?
God bless
Well Ebouty, the doctrine of the trinity says that any proposition you would care to make about one person of the trinity, doesn’t necessarily apply to the other two, because they are different persons. So at least as far as the trinity doctrine is concerned, yes one could be sleeping in heaven, while the other is on earth. There might be other doctrines that would have a bearing on that question, but at least as far as the trinity is concerned, you can’t assume any proposition that applies to one, necessarily applies to the other.
To settle first what our argument is all about, please make me understand what is the Hypostatic Union according to the Council of Chalcedon as I already asked you earlier.
God bless you.
*****So at least as far as the trinity doctrine is concerned, yes one could be sleeping in heaven, while the other is on earth.******
Wow, what an amazing knowledge John has. He was now telling us that there are three Gods, one God is dwelling on earth, the other is sleeping in heaven and the other playing with the Angels and Saints. There are three gods according to John’s theology.
His not that heresy?
God bless you in your belief.
Wow, what an amazing knowledge Ebouty has. He was now telling us that there is one person of God. Jesus, the Father and the Spirit, are the same thing. Any proposition that applies to one, applies to the others, so they are the same, there is no distinguishing them. There one person of God according to Ebouty theology.
Martin Luther put it this way: “if you do not make a distinction between each of the Persons within the Godhead, … apart from, and above, all creatures; and do not ascribe to each his own perculiar properties which cannot be ascribed to the rest; then, you confound the Persons, which is … false and departing from the faith!”
I don’t really understand why randomly, some of my posts don’t show up here. I can post them again and again, but they never show. Other posts come up straight away.
*****The question for you is why these things were present in the early church, and yet little controversy is recorded till much much later. Did nobody at all receive a different tradition from the apostles *******
Read this site that I think will help:
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/assumption.html
Tell me if you don’t understand, but keep in mind I’m waiting for your explanation on the Hypostatic Union.
God bless
******I don’t really understand why randomly, some of my posts don’t show up here. I can post them again and again, but they never show. Other posts come up straight away. ******
And why this one comes up?
By the way, I’m gonna leave for hours to do some work. I’ll be in touch with you maybe today or make it tomorrow.
Good luck.
@Ebouty, You quote a polemic against the assumption of Mary, which claims that the first church father to affirm the assumption was in 590AD.
At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that “Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven.”
Nobody has ever claimed to have a bodily relic of Mary, which is in stark contrast to every other saint.
No doubt, what happened to Mary’s body was not high on the list of priorities for the early church fathers to discuss. But that doesn’t mean that the church, at least locally, didn’t take a keen interest in what saints were buried where. And in the case of Mary, the collective memory that her body was nowhere.
What happened to Mary is not of such overarching importance that it rises to the level of dogma, which is why Orthodoxy doesn’t dogmatise such things. On the other hand, you don’t really have any cause for saying it didn’t happen. Unless you were there at the time?
“And here are some passages from the scripture showing His physical body unable to be omnipresent:”
And to be fair, all those passages show is Jesus not using super-human powers on various occasions. I mean, there is massive eisegesis going on here. Take this one: “Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.” But you’re trying to sell us the story that the Lord WAS there, omnipresent in his divine nature… yet he still died. So much for that theory.
Wow, super frustrated here about bugs in this comment system….
“Wait a minute what do you mean by “your proposition”? What is my proposition?”
I quoted your proposition, namely that Christ’s divine nature is omnipresent, but not his human nature.
“You are right having a body widely distributed is not omnipresence, because it’s impossible unless is in the form of a God or deity, the Spirit.”
What is impossible? To distribute your body widely? Why do you say such a thing?
“Here are some passages from the Bible showing His omnipresent character while He was still on earth:”
To be fair, those only point to super-human powers rather than omni-presence. Anyway, whatever, either way I don’t see why this is important.
–I will first try and explain that passage according to my opinion”
I’ve given up trying to figure out what it is that makes the comment system accept or reject a posting. It’s just totally broken right now, so its frustrating I can’t post what I wrote.
******What is impossible? To distribute your body widely? Why do you say such a thing? ******
Do you think John at the time you cut your finger and give it to someone in one location, can the other 1000 miles away can receive the same finger at the same time? That is what I mean for the impossible only in physicality.
What are you, John?
God bless
******Wow, what an amazing knowledge Ebouty has. He was now telling us that there is one person of God. Jesus, the Father and the Spirit, are the same thing. Any proposition that applies to one, applies to the others, so they are the same, there is no distinguishing them. There one person of God according to Ebouty theology. ******
Is that how you understand Trinity John?
You bring up Martin’s comment, but you even don’t understand what you are getting at.
You accept that if the Spirit dwells on earth the the others remain in heaven without knowledge of what is going on on earth, unless HS report to them.
You are the most funniest guy I ever met in a debate.
Never mind I will respond to that soon.
God bless
Oh! I almost forgot. John you still have not answer my question concerning your explanation on the Hypostatic Nature discussed at the Council of Chalcedon.
God bless
Ebouty, it’s too frustrating to post here when half of what I post doesn’t come up. Tried different browsers, tried breaking it up into smaller sections, nothing works.
Meanwhile, you continue to post stuff WAY in excess of the 2000 character limit that everyone else is limited to. For reasons you don’t explain, you have that power, and the rest of us poor slobs don’t.
If you want to adjourn this to another forum, we can continue.