" Paschasius Radbertus was the first to formulate the doctrine of transubstantiation in the ninth century. He was opposed by Ratranmus, a contemporary monk at the monastery of Corbie. Ratranmus wrote: "The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a figurative sense" (De corpore et sanguine Christi). This controversy between two Catholic monks shows that both views were present in the Catholic church at least up to the eleventh century. The debate continued until the thirteenth century when the final decision was taken by the Lateran Council in 1215.
The Doctor of the Church, Duns Scotus, admits that transubstantiation was not an article of faith before that the thirteenth century"
Is the Eucharist only symbolic.
Moderator: Moderators
Post #91
Yes, Jesus Himself is the "TRUE Bread" that must be eaten (trogon).Eloi wrote: [Replying to post 86 by MarysSon]
He said he was the real bread of life also. Nobody saw a piece of bread walking in Judea.
John 6:30 Therefore they said to him: “What, then, are you performing as a sign, in order for us to see [it] and believe you? What work are you doing? 31 Our forefathers ate the manna in the wilderness, just as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’� 32 Hence Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Moses did not give YOU the bread from heaven, but my Father does give YOU the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.� 34 Therefore they said to him: “Lord, always give us this bread.�
35 Jesus said to them: “I am the bread of life. He that comes to me will not get hungry at all, and he that exercises faith in me will never get thirsty at all. 36 But I have said to YOU, YOU have even seen me and yet do not believe. 37 Everything the Father gives me will come to me, and the one that comes to me I will by no means drive away; 38 because I have come down from heaven to do, not my will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 This is the will of him that sent me, that I should lose nothing out of all that he has given me but that I should resurrect it at the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone that beholds the Son and exercises faith in him should have everlasting life, and I will resurrect him at the last day.�
The expression "the real" does not mean necessarily that the figure is not metaphorical. What is real is the meaning, and it must be taken seriously.
Nothing "symbolic" here. He meant what He said.
When His disciples walked away in horror (John 6:66) - did Jesus stop them and say, "Hey - wait a minute! I was speaking metaphorically! No need to be shocked by what I said."
NO. He turned to the Twelve and said flatly: "Do you ALSO want to leave?"
He meant exactly what He said - and MOST of them couldn't handle so they walked away.
The first Protestants . . .
Post #93
EXACTLY.Eloi wrote: Well, I do not see that there was any disciple of Jesus who has cut a piece out of him to eat it. Do you?
That's why Jesus showed His Apostles the sacramental way to consume Him at the Last supper when He used bread and wine and transformed it into His Body and Blood.
He gave them His Body and Blood Sacramentally - not in literal tissue, muscle and bone.
-
Eloi
- Banned
- Posts: 1775
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 216 times
- Contact:
Post #96
[Replying to MarysSon]
You are wrong; they did not leave because it was funny, but because they thought it was an offensive speech ... the same way you do, cause they thought an offense to talk about consuming human flesh and drinking blood, as you think Jesus meant. If I follow your attitude (which you should change), the one in their company is you.
John 6:60 Therefore many of his disciples, when they heard this, said: “This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?�
You are wrong; they did not leave because it was funny, but because they thought it was an offensive speech ... the same way you do, cause they thought an offense to talk about consuming human flesh and drinking blood, as you think Jesus meant. If I follow your attitude (which you should change), the one in their company is you.
John 6:60 Therefore many of his disciples, when they heard this, said: “This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?�
-
brianbbs67
- Guru
- Posts: 1871
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:07 am
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #97
Why is cananballism a requirement of your belief? It is clear enough that its figurative. "Here is my body, broken for you. Here is my blood., spilt for you. As often as you do this.(gather and eat and drink) Do this and remember me."MarysSon wrote:Nice TRY . . .brianbbs67 wrote:It is meant to gnaw(and digest its meaning) on the law. Jesus was the Word incarnate(the Torah).MarysSon wrote:And the REASON consumption of blood was forbidden is because the LIFE is contained in the blood.brianbbs67 wrote: The first gigantic reason Jesus/Yeshua ben Yosef had to be talking in metaphors is: the law. He preached the law and it forbid blood or human flesh. Still does.
You don't want the life of a goat or a bull in you - or even another person.
HOWEVER - there is ONE Person whose life we DO want in us - and that is Christ. This is why he told His followers they MUST eat His flesh and drink His blood or they would have NO LIFE in them (John 6:53).
The usual Greek word used for human eating is “phagon�, however, this is not the word used in these passages. John uses the word, “trogon�, which means, to munch or to gnaw - like an animal. Jesus was using hyperbole (exaggeration) as he often did to drive his point across so that the crowd would understand that he was not speaking metaphorically. He meant what he said.
However - Jesus already answered this false idea in verse 55:
John 6:55
For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
This is NOT a metaphor . . .
Post #98
The point is that they LEFT Him because they couldn't handle what He was telling them.Eloi wrote: [Replying to MarysSon]
You are wrong; they did not leave because it was funny, but because they thought it was an offensive speech ... the same way you do, cause they thought an offense to talk about consuming human flesh and drinking blood, as you think Jesus meant. If I follow your attitude (which you should change), the one in their company is you.
John 6:60 Therefore many of his disciples, when they heard this, said: “This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?�
Did He try to stop them? Did He try to explain that He was only speaking "metaphorically"?? NO.
ALL He said to them was "Does this shock you?"
This incident marks the ONLY time in the Gospel that Jesus's disciples left Him for a doctrinal reason.
He meant what He said because He is the fulfillment of the Paschal Lamb, which had to be consumed. He is the Lamb of GOD.
WEho wwrote the Gospal we call John's?
Post #99REPLY:MarysSon wrote:The point is that they LEFT Him because they couldn't handle what He was telling them.Eloi wrote: [Replying to MarysSon]
You are wrong; they did not leave because it was funny, but because they thought it was an offensive speech ... the same way you do, cause they thought an offense to talk about consuming human flesh and drinking blood, as you think Jesus meant. If I follow your attitude (which you should change), the one in their company is you.
John 6:60 Therefore many of his disciples, when they heard this, said: “This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?�
Did He try to stop them? Did He try to explain that He was only speaking "metaphorically"?? NO.
ALL He said to them was "Does this shock you?"
This incident marks the ONLY time in the Gospel that Jesus's disciples left Him for a doctrinal reason.
He meant what He said because He is the fulfillment of the Paschal Lamb, which had to be consumed. He is the Lamb of GOD.
From Wikipedia:
The gospel of John went through two or three "editions" before reaching its current form around AD 90–100.[11][3][4] It speaks of an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions, but does not say specifically that he is its author;[5] Christian tradition identifies this disciple as the apostle John, but while this idea still has supporters, for a variety of reasons the majority of modern scholars have abandoned it or hold it only tenuously.[12][Notes 3]
The "disciple Jesus loved" was Lazaarus, not John. Read the the gospelof John which gives two proofs of this.
Re: WEho wwrote the Gospal we call John's?
Post #100Nothing like changing the subject once your LOST the argument about the Eucharist . . .polonius wrote:REPLY:
From Wikipedia:
The gospel of John went through two or three "editions" before reaching its current form around AD 90–100.[11][3][4] It speaks of an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions, but does not say specifically that he is its author;[5] Christian tradition identifies this disciple as the apostle John, but while this idea still has supporters, for a variety of reasons the majority of modern scholars have abandoned it or hold it only tenuously.[12][Notes 3]
The "disciple Jesus loved" was Lazaarus, not John. Read the the gospelof John which gives two proofs of this.
As for your NEW topic - this is easily-debunkable.
First of all - the onus is on YOU and wikiperdia to provide a list of the "majority of modern scholars" who have "abandoned" the idea that the "Disciple whom Jesus loved" is John.
Secondly - this disciple was at the Last Supper reclining on the "bosom of Jesus" (John 13:23).
EVERY record of the Last supper - Biblical and extrabilical - states that the only disciples that were present were the Twelve - so that cancels out Lazarus.
