Or does it need to be? If a church fabricates fanciful doctrine, then it doesn't need to reconcile with the Bible.
2007-11-26 03:12:57 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Jesus still had his fleshly body when offering the bread. This body, whole and entire, was to be offered as a perfect, unblemished sacrifice for sins the next afternoon (of the same day of the Hebrew calendar, Nisan 14). He also retained all his blood for that perfect sacrifice. “He poured out his soul [which is in the blood] to the very death.” (Isa 53:12; Le 17:11) Consequently, during the evening meal he did not perform a miracle of transubstantiation, changing the bread into his literal flesh and the wine into his literal blood. For the same reasons, it cannot be truly said that he miraculously caused his flesh and his blood to be present or combined with the bread and wine, as is claimed by those who adhere to the doctrine of consubstantiation.
When Jesus changed the water into wine at the wedding feast at Cana, there was no question about a miracle’s having been performed. That water changed to wine tasted better than the regular wine they had been drinking. Had Jesus actually performed a miracle, then his apostles would have been guilty of breaking God’s law, which forbade the drinking of blood. Gen. 9:4
The Catholic Church can deviate from the Bible and still think it is okay. All they need to do is declare an unscriptural doctrine an "article of faith." That way, such a teaching may supercede what the Bible says.
2007-11-26 03:36:01 · answer #1 · answered by LineDancer 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
As a Lutheran I find nothing unbiblical about the doctrine of Transubstantiation in of itself. Now the issue that protestannts truly have is whether this is "another sacrifice" being offerred.
Whether the bread and wine is truly in substance blood and flesh is not the issue for Lutherans and Anglicans and other reformed protestants. There is no doubt Jesus says this IS his blood and IS his body. Just as the Holy Spirit ALL of God IS within believers. As Lutherans we simply refuse to say whether this statment truly means substance as we understand it and so we say that Christ is in the bread, around the bread, and over and under the bread. We simply refuse to use human means to specify the ccontents and submit merely to his language. We believe that God uses physical things to manifest himself whether it is Jesus as a human, The Holy Spirit in the waters of baptism,or the Christ as living bread and wine.
I believe the modern church has lost faith in a God who acts supernaturally. Thus the opposition to what the Christian church has clearly taught for thousands of years concerning communion and baptism. As a Lutheran I agree with the Catholic statment of substance but disagree with its view on this being a regurgitates sacrifice. I spoke to the associate dean at CUA onetime (Catholic U in DC) and he described his view which I wish the RC would adopt. It would reconcile the seperation on this issue. He stated he believed that this unbloody sacrifice via the eucharist is a return to the one sacrifice at calvary and it is merely that sacrifice existing outside of time in perpetuity. This would reconcile the one sacrifice issue that many protestants have with the RC on communion. As far as the substance the scriptures are clear as well as the patristics who were the apostles contemporaries and canonized the bible. How foolish it would be to believe that Ignatius, Polycarp would believe something inconsistent with their mentors, the apostles Paul and John!
2007-11-26 03:42:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is very little 'reality' that is reconciled by the bible, so why argue over transubstantiation?
If you are willing to believe that women can give birth without sperm, and that water can spontaneously turn into wine, why argue about wine turning into blood?
2007-11-26 03:23:58 · answer #3 · answered by ɹɐǝɟsuɐs Blessed Cheese Maker 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Face it, Christianity grew out of a pagan world whether you like it or not bub.
2007-11-26 03:26:12 · answer #4 · answered by Joquius 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most of Roman dogma is based upon Aristotelian ideals ... and they have been dancing for ages. I find it amazing that when something doesn't fit, they retranslate the Greek NT in Aramaic, Latin or Hebrew to try to get a word that will fit their need.
Ath
2007-11-26 03:16:10 · answer #5 · answered by athanasius was right 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
What did Jesus who is God say?
This is my body.
Funny how you believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis but not in the words of Jesus.
2007-11-26 03:21:32 · answer #6 · answered by carl 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋