Transubstantiation

cathmomof3 · Jul 15, 2006

IfIonlyhadabrain said:
A page back there was a question about why there is a need for bread and wine to be changed substantially into the Body and Blood of Christ. I just wanted to give a bit of an answer to this.

A clue lies in another teaching of Catholocism: that the Sacrifice and Celebration of the Mass is the same Sacrifice of Calvary, the exact same, ongoing Sacrifice which brought/brings salvation to mankind.

There is often a difference between talking about what is sufficient for salvation, and what goes beyond sufficient. The difference often has to do with knowledge, or personal circumstances. For example, if a person has lived isolated from all contact with anyone who might bring the Gospel to him, but all his life lived honestly according to what he believed to be good and true and right, then it may be said that he lived in the spirit of Christ, though he never heard of Christ or the salvation He brings, and as such, may by way of a kind of spiritual baptism, attain salvation.

However, as soon as this same person learns about the truth of the Gospel, and Christ's saving sacrifice, he has an obligation to accept Christ, and follow His commands.

Thusly, the Catholic Church recognizes "one Baptism for the remission of sin." Of course it is the remission of sin which sanctifies us and grants us salvation, as it was Original Sin which closed the gates of heaven to man in the first place.

So we see that knowledge, and understanding play an important role in salvation. However, let it be stated that we are all called to seek the truth always. Living a good life in invincible ignorance is enough to be saved, but knowing the Good News and knowing Christ and loving Him and keeping His commands is better. Thus we are called to find the truth. For, it seems, God will always call us to what is better.

Christ instituted seven Sacraments, which give the grace that sanctifies, and those who know and understand them, are called to partake in them for salvation. Baptism may be sufficient for the one who only knows or understands the basic need for salvation, but those who have gone deeper are obliged to participate in what is better. If one rejects these Sacraments, knowingly and from understanding, thusly rejects Christ, for they were instituted by Him for our salvation. The Eucharist is one of these sacraments.

A basic natural law (and we all know that natural laws were created and instituted by God) is that of reciprocation. If injury is done, injury is returned. If kindness is done, kindness is returned. Of course, there is a higher law which states that we should "turn the other cheek" when injury is done, and that we should do kindness where no kindness was first done, and even when kindness is not expected in return. However, there is another aspect of reciprocation, and that is to repair injuries done. We call this penance. It is right and good to pay the one you are in debt to, and debt comes either from reception of a gift, or from causing an injury or offense.

It is this basic principle of Justice which made it necessary that mankind offer some form of sacrifice, a kind of penance, in order to repair the offense we did against God. It was Justice which made it necessary for Christ to come to us for our salvation. Christ, as a perfect man, and as a Divine being (the Second Person of the Trinity, God Himself), made the perfect sacrifice that would repair the offense of Adam and Eve. His sacrifice was perfect Justice.

His sacrifice alone is sufficient for the salvation of every person, who also receives Baptism of the Holy Spirit and is sanctified in Christ. However, there is a difference between what is sufficient, and what is better.

Christ, as a Divine Being, as God, transcends time and space. This is how we are able to call the Mass the same sacrifice of Calvary. When Christ instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist, or Communion, He did so because even though His sacrifice was enough, it would be better if everyone offered that sacrifice with Him. Thus, by coming to us in the form of communion bread (and wine), we are able to unite ourselves to Him and join in the sacrifice of Calvary, the perfect sacrifice for the salvation of mankind.

When Christ said "this is my Body" and "this is my Blood" at the Last Supper, it was the same day that He died. We recount these on two separate days: Holy Thursday and Good Friday. However, in the Jewish counting of time, the evening (6:00 PM I believe) is the beginning of the next day. Thus, the Last Supper and His death on the Cross happened all on the same day according to Jewish reckoning.

Therefore, we celebrate the Last Supper and offer the Sacrifice of Calvary in one Mass. For, when the priest says "this is my Body" he is speaking in persona Christi which means that Christ, sitting at the table of the Last Supper, transcended time, and speaks through every ordained priest who also speaks those same words, and as they did at the last supper, the bread and wine become Jesus Himself. It is in recieving Christ in the Eucharist that we become united to Him, spiritually and physically, and partake in that perfect sacrifice of Calvary. We share in the act of perfect justice of man offering penance to God for his offences.

Sure, we could have shared in that sacrifice spiritually, offered a spiritual communion, and that would have been sufficient. Heck, even just being Baptized and sanctified in the Holy Spirit is sufficient. However, Christ, knowing all things good, better and best, gave us the best, full union with Him in that sacrifice, body and soul.

And, since I know it, I am obliged to take part in it, for my knowledge demands that I do. If I refuse to, then I effectively refuse Christ, and His saving sacrifice. Thus, the Church, in her wisdom, obliges us to received communion at least once a year, and stronly encourages much more.

Why did Christ institute the sacrament of the Eucharist? Because it's best.

Excellent post!

Polycarp1 · Jul 15, 2006

cathmomof3 said:
Because we did not pick up the bible 400 years after Christianity began, read John ch 6 and say here is what I think he meant. We had our beliefs in the Eucharist passed to us in a direct line from the apostles. This has been the belief of the CC for 2000 years.

This is sort of the point I was trying to make earlier, cathmomof3, in drawing the distinction between Real Presence and transubstantiation. The Church has always believed in Christ's Real Presence in the eucharistic elements, as a matter of holy mystery. See some of the comments from Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans on the subject here. Disagreement from this point seems to date no earlier than Radbertus in the 9th century, and was not a popular belief until Zwingli.

As an explanation of that mystery, St. Thomas Aquinas used Aristotelian metaphysical categories to spell out how he believed God brought about the Real Presence in his teaching of transubstantiation, over 1000 years later. The Catholic Church has pronounced that St. Thomas was in fact correct, and defined transubstantiation as the accurate understanding of the Real Presence.

Some of the rest of us believe as firmly and strongly as Catholics in the Real Presence, but do not subscribe, or do not necessarily subscribe as doctrine, to St. Thomas's explanation. And I thought that that was a valid point to make.

cathmomof3 · Jul 15, 2006

Polycarp1 said:
This is sort of the point I was trying to make earlier, cathmomof3, in drawing the distinction between Real Presence and transubstantiation. The Church has always believed in Christ's Real Presence in the eucharistic elements, as a matter of holy mystery. See some of the comments from Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans on the subject here. Disagreement from this point seems to date no earlier than Radbertus in the 9th century, and was not a popular belief until Zwingli.

As an explanation of that mystery, St. Thomas Aquinas used Aristotelian metaphysical categories to spell out how he believed God brought about the Real Presence in his teaching of transubstantiation, over 1000 years later. The Catholic Church has pronounced that St. Thomas was in fact correct, and defined transubstantiation as the accurate understanding of the Real Presence.

Some of the rest of us believe as firmly and strongly as Catholics in the Real Presence, but do not subscribe, or do not necessarily subscribe as doctrine, to St. Thomas's explanation. And I thought that that was a valid point to make.

I really don't see the point though. Transubtantiation was just putting into words how the Eucharist becomes the body & blood of Christ. How this happens is really irrelevant to me as I know that it does become the body & blood. I think the disagreement is just about semantics and not important. I personally subscribe to what St. Thomas believed. Also, just because a "label" was put on how it happens, it still is and always will be a "mystery" until we die.

christianmomof3 · Jul 15, 2006

IfIonlyhadabrain said:
A page back there was a question about why there is a need for bread and wine to be changed substantially into the Body and Blood of Christ. I just wanted to give a bit of an answer to this.

A clue lies in another teaching of Catholocism: that the Sacrifice and Celebration of the Mass is the same Sacrifice of Calvary, the exact same, ongoing Sacrifice which brought/brings salvation to mankind.

There is often a difference between talking about what is sufficient for salvation, and what goes beyond sufficient. The difference often has to do with knowledge, or personal circumstances. For example, if a person has lived isolated from all contact with anyone who might bring the Gospel to him, but all his life lived honestly according to what he believed to be good and true and right, then it may be said that he lived in the spirit of Christ, though he never heard of Christ or the salvation He brings, and as such, may by way of a kind of spiritual baptism, attain salvation.

However, as soon as this same person learns about the truth of the Gospel, and Christ's saving sacrifice, he has an obligation to accept Christ, and follow His commands.

Thusly, the Catholic Church recognizes "one Baptism for the remission of sin." Of course it is the remission of sin which sanctifies us and grants us salvation, as it was Original Sin which closed the gates of heaven to man in the first place.

So we see that knowledge, and understanding play an important role in salvation. However, let it be stated that we are all called to seek the truth always. Living a good life in invincible ignorance is enough to be saved, but knowing the Good News and knowing Christ and loving Him and keeping His commands is better. Thus we are called to find the truth. For, it seems, God will always call us to what is better.

Christ instituted seven Sacraments, which give the grace that sanctifies, and those who know and understand them, are called to partake in them for salvation. Baptism may be sufficient for the one who only knows or understands the basic need for salvation, but those who have gone deeper are obliged to participate in what is better. If one rejects these Sacraments, knowingly and from understanding, thusly rejects Christ, for they were instituted by Him for our salvation. The Eucharist is one of these sacraments.

A basic natural law (and we all know that natural laws were created and instituted by God) is that of reciprocation. If injury is done, injury is returned. If kindness is done, kindness is returned. Of course, there is a higher law which states that we should "turn the other cheek" when injury is done, and that we should do kindness where no kindness was first done, and even when kindness is not expected in return. However, there is another aspect of reciprocation, and that is to repair injuries done. We call this penance. It is right and good to pay the one you are in debt to, and debt comes either from reception of a gift, or from causing an injury or offense.

It is this basic principle of Justice which made it necessary that mankind offer some form of sacrifice, a kind of penance, in order to repair the offense we did against God. It was Justice which made it necessary for Christ to come to us for our salvation. Christ, as a perfect man, and as a Divine being (the Second Person of the Trinity, God Himself), made the perfect sacrifice that would repair the offense of Adam and Eve. His sacrifice was perfect Justice.

His sacrifice alone is sufficient for the salvation of every person, who also receives Baptism of the Holy Spirit and is sanctified in Christ. However, there is a difference between what is sufficient, and what is better.

Christ, as a Divine Being, as God, transcends time and space. This is how we are able to call the Mass the same sacrifice of Calvary. When Christ instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist, or Communion, He did so because even though His sacrifice was enough, it would be better if everyone offered that sacrifice with Him. Thus, by coming to us in the form of communion bread (and wine), we are able to unite ourselves to Him and join in the sacrifice of Calvary, the perfect sacrifice for the salvation of mankind.

When Christ said "this is my Body" and "this is my Blood" at the Last Supper, it was the same day that He died. We recount these on two separate days: Holy Thursday and Good Friday. However, in the Jewish counting of time, the evening (6:00 PM I believe) is the beginning of the next day. Thus, the Last Supper and His death on the Cross happened all on the same day according to Jewish reckoning.

Therefore, we celebrate the Last Supper and offer the Sacrifice of Calvary in one Mass. For, when the priest says "this is my Body" he is speaking in persona Christi which means that Christ, sitting at the table of the Last Supper, transcended time, and speaks through every ordained priest who also speaks those same words, and as they did at the last supper, the bread and wine become Jesus Himself. It is in recieving Christ in the Eucharist that we become united to Him, spiritually and physically, and partake in that perfect sacrifice of Calvary. We share in the act of perfect justice of man offering penance to God for his offences.

Sure, we could have shared in that sacrifice spiritually, offered a spiritual communion, and that would have been sufficient. Heck, even just being Baptized and sanctified in the Holy Spirit is sufficient. However, Christ, knowing all things good, better and best, gave us the best, full union with Him in that sacrifice, body and soul.

And, since I know it, I am obliged to take part in it, for my knowledge demands that I do. If I refuse to, then I effectively refuse Christ, and His saving sacrifice. Thus, the Church, in her wisdom, obliges us to received communion at least once a year, and stronly encourages much more.

Why did Christ institute the sacrament of the Eucharist? Because it's best.

Thank you for that informative and well-thought out answer. It is quite interesting.

vrunca · Jul 15, 2006

Would someone please give an explanation of what consubstantiation is? I hear that quite a lot lately and never really heard from someone who believes in this what it actually means. I have only heard from those who directly believe in transubstantiation or believe in symbols or something. Thanks for your help in this!!

rosewaning · Jul 15, 2006

Consubstantiation is the belief that the Body and Blood are present alongside, rather than inside, the wine and bread. In other words, when you consume the wine and bread, you are consuming the Body and Blood also, but there is no consecration of the wine and bread.

Splayd · Jul 15, 2006

A few points I'd like to address:

1. If Ignatius was already criticising those who don't believe in a physical understanding of the eucharist being flesh in 110 CE, then clearly that belief didn't just start years and years later, but existed all along.

2. Tradition is useful but limited. It's a history of the winners in the churches doctrinal debates. It seems that every apostolic church assumes their tradition to be the legitimate one, while the erroneous breaks with tradition exist only in the others. Clearly an appeal to tradition has limitations as you can't all be right. While you may all agree on the "real presence", that may simply mean the doctrinal "victory" occured earlier rather than later. I understand that we won't sway each other on this point and won't deviate along this line further. Just appreciate that for pretty much anyone who disagrees with your stance on an issue, regarding your churches tradition, appeals back to that tradition won't be readily accepted as authoritive.

3. Even IF there is a physical transformation of sorts there is no way that it occured the first time Jesus shared with His disciples. To instruct them to partake of the eucharist then would have been leading them to break at least 3 laws: 1) Drinking blood, 2) Eating prohibited food, 3) Eating the flesh of a living creature. More to the point, leading others into sin is in itself against Torah. Jesus would've been violating the law in doing so. As Jesus was presented as a perfect and blameless sacrifice, we know he could not have broken the law, just as the scriptures inform us.

4. I've never yet heard anyone come to a literal understanding of any of the scriptures presented here, without first being indoctrinated in the belief. Before you try telling me that we can't undertand scripture without your tradition explaining it to us, please see my 2nd point.

All in all - I personally believe our churches tend to err at either extreme. I believe our error lies in our need to explain the unexplainable. When we dismiss communion as simply an act of remembrance, we dismiss the importance and significance of this practice that Christ initiated and asks us to continue. Likewise I believe that when we try to formally explain it as any type of physical transformation we dismiss the mystery of it, risk idolatry and further a limited and faulty understanding. But hey - that's just what I think and I'm not the sole perfect authority on such matter like at least 5 different churches claim to be.

a_ntv · Jul 15, 2006

1. If Ignatius was already criticising those who don't believe in a physical understanding of the eucharist being flesh in 110 CE, then clearly that belief didn't just start years and years later, but existed all along.
Yuo are right

2. Tradition is useful but limited. It's a history of the winners in the churches doctrinal debates. It seems that every apostolic church assumes their tradition to be the legitimate one, while the erroneous breaks with tradition exist only in the others. Clearly an appeal to tradition has limitations as you can't all be right. While you may all agree on the "real presence", that may simply mean the doctrinal "victory" occured earlier rather than later. I understand that we won't sway each other on this point and won't deviate along this line further. Just appreciate that for pretty much anyone who disagrees with your stance on an issue, regarding your churches tradition, appeals back to that tradition won't be readily accepted as authoritive.
If you want to go into the history, I remind you that the NT was choised by the same Fathers that believed the Real Presence.
It the early Church there was by far more difficoulties to accept ad instance Revelation (or other books) than to believe in the Real Presence. That is history. If you want to start from a hustorical point of view, you shall be really rigorous in all.

3. Even IF there is a physical transformation of sorts there is no way that it occured the first time Jesus shared with His disciples. To instruct them to partake of the eucharist then would have been leading them to break at least 3 laws: 1) Drinking blood, 2) Eating prohibited food, 3) Eating the flesh of a living creature. More to the point, leading others into sin is in itself against Torah. Jesus would've been violating the law in doing so. As Jesus was presented as a perfect and blameless sacrifice, we know he could not have broken the law, just as the scriptures inform us.
This violation of the Law was nothing in comparison to othe main outrageuos insult to the Jewish religion that Jesus made: he called himself God!!!! (the worse of any breaking of the Law for the Jews!!)
And Jesus prepared lots of time his discepoles to by insulted and marirized for their Faith (mailny by Jews)

4. I've never yet heard anyone come to a literal understanding of any of the scriptures presented here, without first being indoctrinated in the belief. Before you try telling me that we can't undertand scripture without your tradition explaining it to us, please see my 2nd point.
I can say also the opposite. The sentence 'it is my body' is simply. It is to prove the 'significant' doctine that it is needed an explanation. But these are personal opinions, not facts. For sure to belive in the Real Body is hard, but Christianism is not for lukewarms who believe only waht they see.

All in all - I personally believe our churches tend to err at either extreme. I believe our error lies in our need to explain the unexplainable. When we dismiss communion as simply an act of remembrance, we dismiss the importance and significance of this practice that Christ initiated and asks us to continue. Likewise I believe that when we try to formally explain it as any type of physical transformation we dismiss the mystery of it, risk idolatry and further a limited and faulty understanding. But hey - that's just what I think and I'm not the sole perfect authority on such matter like at least 5 different churches claim to be In that you are right: no dot confond the Fact (Real Presence) with the philosofy/language used to exlain it (as instance Transubstantation in late middle age, or Typos for the Fathers). The Fact is true, the philosofy/language cab change.

Splayd · Jul 15, 2006

a_ntv said:
This violation of the Law was nothing in comparison to othe main outrageuos insult to the Jewish religion that Jesus made: he called himself God!!!! (the worse of any breaking of the Law for the Jews!!)
And Jesus prepared lots of time his discepoles to by insulted and marirized for their Faith (mailny by Jews)

There's a significant difference here. While Jesus was accused of blasphemy, he didn't actually commit blasphemy. God calling Himself God has never been considered blasphemous. Any accusations can only really be valid, if a)Jesus said He was God and b)He wasn't. As we know He is God, any indication He gave to that affect is not blasphemy at all. Meanwhile, even in their legal court, we are told they had to produce false witnesses to establish His guilt, so even by the legal standards of Jerusalem at the time, He was never really guilty of that offense.
On the other hand, if Jesus actually did instruct them to drink actual blood, there is no denying it was a violation of the law, both in the eyes of their legal system and in the written Torah. Scripture informs us that Jesus was without sin, thus never broke God's Torah. Any suggestion of Jesus' blood being physically present at any time or in any way during that first communion is either wrong or Jesus wasn't really perfect and blameless according to the very standards He established and came to fulfill.

christianmomof3 · Jul 15, 2006

Splayd said:
A few points I'd like to address:

3. Even IF there is a physical transformation of sorts there is no way that it occured the first time Jesus shared with His disciples. To instruct them to partake of the eucharist then would have been leading them to break at least 3 laws: 1) Drinking blood, 2) Eating prohibited food, 3) Eating the flesh of a living creature. More to the point, leading others into sin is in itself against Torah. Jesus would've been violating the law in doing so. As Jesus was presented as a perfect and blameless sacrifice, we know he could not have broken the law, just as the scriptures inform us.

Actually, for those who believe there is a physical transformation, I think they do belive it happened the first time. Why would they believe it happened at all if they don't think it happened then? Therefore it happened then and all the times or else none of them.
However, the arguement about Jesus breaking the law by doing so does not work. He broke lots of laws. He healed on the Sabbath and had the disciples gather food on the Sabbath and I think broke the hand washing law and perhaps some others.

I still think that God's purpose is to get into man spiritually, not physically, so the whole physical transformation does not fit with His purpose.

cathmomof3 · Jul 15, 2006

Splayd said:
A few points I'd like to address:

1. If Ignatius was already criticising those who don't believe in a physical understanding of the eucharist being flesh in 110 CE, then clearly that belief didn't just start years and years later, but existed all along.

2. Tradition is useful but limited. It's a history of the winners in the churches doctrinal debates. It seems that every apostolic church assumes their tradition to be the legitimate one, while the erroneous breaks with tradition exist only in the others. Clearly an appeal to tradition has limitations as you can't all be right. While you may all agree on the "real presence", that may simply mean the doctrinal "victory" occured earlier rather than later. I understand that we won't sway each other on this point and won't deviate along this line further. Just appreciate that for pretty much anyone who disagrees with your stance on an issue, regarding your churches tradition, appeals back to that tradition won't be readily accepted as authoritive.

3. Even IF there is a physical transformation of sorts there is no way that it occured the first time Jesus shared with His disciples. To instruct them to partake of the eucharist then would have been leading them to break at least 3 laws: 1) Drinking blood, 2) Eating prohibited food, 3) Eating the flesh of a living creature. More to the point, leading others into sin is in itself against Torah. Jesus would've been violating the law in doing so. As Jesus was presented as a perfect and blameless sacrifice, we know he could not have broken the law, just as the scriptures inform us.

4. I've never yet heard anyone come to a literal understanding of any of the scriptures presented here, without first being indoctrinated in the belief. Before you try telling me that we can't undertand scripture without your tradition explaining it to us, please see my 2nd point.

All in all - I personally believe our churches tend to err at either extreme. I believe our error lies in our need to explain the unexplainable. When we dismiss communion as simply an act of remembrance, we dismiss the importance and significance of this practice that Christ initiated and asks us to continue. Likewise I believe that when we try to formally explain it as any type of physical transformation we dismiss the mystery of it, risk idolatry and further a limited and faulty understanding. But hey - that's just what I think and I'm not the sole perfect authority on such matter like at least 5 different churches claim to be.

You have made several good points and I do respect your opinion. however, I still do disagree and will always look to the Tradition of the early Christians when determining which interpretation of scripture to follow.

I would also like to mention that I really appreciate how you always address others of different faiths with respect. (I have tried to do such, but have not been successful in a few instances)

a_ntv · Jul 15, 2006

Splayd said:
There's a significant difference here. While Jesus was accused of blasphemy, he didn't actually commit blasphemy. God calling Himself God has never been considered blasphemous. Any accusations can only really be valid, if a)Jesus said He was God and b)He wasn't. As we know He is God, any indication He gave to that affect is not blasphemy at all. Meanwhile, even in their legal court, we are told they had to produce false witnesses to establish His guilt, so even by the legal standards of Jerusalem at the time, He was never really guilty of that offense.
On the other hand, if Jesus actually did instruct them to drink actual blood, there is no denying it was a violation of the law, both in the eyes of their legal system and in the written Torah. Scripture informs us that Jesus was without sin, thus never broke God's Torah. Any suggestion of Jesus' blood being physically present at any time or in any way during that first communion is either wrong or Jesus wasn't really perfect and blameless according to the very standards He established and came to fulfill.

Jesus bestemyed the Jeswish religion indeed. And He was guilty by legal standards of Jerusalem at the time. He did not awswered, and this was a prove of guilty for the jewish juristicion that required (not simply allowed) the defendant to justify himself. Not only:
Mat 26:64 Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." Then the high priest tore his robes, and said, "He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. All the synedfrium was testimony of that. And again He was on silent.
An other exemple of breaking the Jewsish Law by christians: They did not circumcided their sons. That is against the same covenant made to Abrham.

But you probably, as son of protestantism, miss a very imporant point extremly important and very developed in the early chuch (up to Mr Luther): the idea of sacrifice in the Eucarist. Blood (and bread) are the historical figures of the only sacrifice, and can be drinken/eaten only bc we are the Temple of the Holy Spirit (Ef 2:21-22). (That is the reason why Paul is so upset when somene drink the blood unworthly).
In the Jerusulam Temple the lambs bood was burned to God. Also part of the meat was burned, and part eaten by priests or by people BUT also the eating of this meat was part of the liturgy (ad instance the priest ld be 100% purified to eat such a meat).
So eating meat sacrificed to God was not an blaspefemy according the Jewish as well as it was done in a liturgy. That do not break the comandament to leave the blood to God. So now read again LuKe 22:20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.". Blasfemy at a jewish eye was not to drink a blood of a sacrifirce, but to claim the necessity a new covenant different from the Abrham one.

You cannot separe the Eucarist form the Cross !!! Dont you know that the altar is the tomb of Jesus?

Splayd · Jul 15, 2006

christianmomof3 said:
Actually, for those who believe there is a physical transformation, I think they do belive it happened the first time. Why would they believe it happened at all if they don't think it happened then? Therefore it happened then and all the times or else none of them.

Yes they do believe that, which was my point. IMO They must be wrong about that instance at the very least.

However, the arguement about Jesus breaking the law by doing so does not work. He broke lots of laws. He healed on the Sabbath and had the disciples gather food on the Sabbath and I think broke the hand washing law and perhaps some others.

This is a common misunderstanding. None of the laws that Jesus "broke" were God's laws at all. Not one of them can be found to be explained as a violation of Torah. Rather they were a violation of the Pharisaic interpretation of law. The Pharisees had erected a fence around the law through their oral law, which they believed was passed on from God through Moses and down to to all the priests since. They were wrong and Jesus called them on it. He went as far as to say that they were the ones who were in error for making the traditions of men as though it were doctrine from God. In any case, there wasn't universal acceptance of the Pharisaic tradition. The Sadducees, who were a significant force within the Sanhedrin did not support the Pharisaic tradition. You will also notice that when Jesus was directly accused of any of those deviances from Pharisaic interpretation, He was able to defend Himself legally by establishing a scriptural precedent. No - aside from the Last Supper (if physical) there is not a single violation of God's law, recorded in the Gospels. Nor would there be, because they were His laws that He established and fulfilled.

As to the accusations against his followers breaking the law, that's a different point altogether. While we are to be living sacrifices, our salvation doesn't rest in our own perfection, but in the perfect sacrifice that Jesus presented as Himself. If we are to be sure of anything - it's that He was and is perfect and that His death and resurection are sufficient for all who will follow Him.

a_ntv · Jul 16, 2006

Splayd said:
No - aside from the Last Supper (if physical) there is not a single violation of God's law,

I explained in my post #76, part in blue, that also the 'phisical' Last Supper was not a violation of the Law.
The Law required that the blood could not be drinken bc the blood is the life (Lev 17:14), and this is property of God only.
You shall simply consider that the body and the blood are the results of the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, and so are offered to God and property of God only.
What to do about that materials: The Jews eated/burned them in the Temple: but Christian are Temples of the Holy Spirit, and so, and only bc of that, we shall/can eat them.
Here an exemple frm OT of blood, property of God, given to the people: Esoodus 24:8 And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people, and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words." (confront this passage with Luke 22:20: for sure Jesus had this passage in his mind).

Jesus interpretation of the Law was a huge interpretation that looked at the spirit of the Law. We can see this with the work on saturday and also with the eating of the sacrificed blood.
About the pharisees, you have a quite wrong ideas of them...For instance they had a surely easier way to life the saturday than Sadduces and Essens ...who were surely more strict on the details of the Laws than Pharisee.

Splayd · Jul 16, 2006

a_ntv said:
I explained in my post #76, part in blue, that also the 'phisical' Last Supper was not a violation of the Law.
The Law required that the blood could not be drinken bc the blood is the life (Lev 17:14), and this is property of God only.
You shall simply consider that the body and the blood are the results of the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, and so are offered to God and property of God only.
What to do about that materials: The Jews eated/burned them in the Temple: but Christian are Temples of the Holy Spirit, and so, and only bc of that, we shall/can eat them.
Here an exemple frm OT of blood, property of God, given to the people: Esoodus 24:8 And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people, and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words." (confront this passage with Luke 22:20: for sure Jesus had this passage in his mind).

Jesus interpretation of the Law was a huge interpretation that looked at the spirit of the Law. We can see this with the work on saturday and also with the eating of the sacrificed blood.

Thanks for that. I will contemplate what you've shared here.

About the pharisees, you have a quite wrong ideas of them...For instance they had a surely easier way to life the saturday than Sadduces and Essens ...who were surely more strict on the details of the Laws than Pharisee.

I wrote a paper on the beliefs and practices of the sects of 2nd Temple Judaism when I was at Bible College. I'm pretty confident on my ideas about them. You are right when you suggest that the Pharisees weren't always the strictest, but my comment was simply that they'd added some significant tradition to the law which was rejected by the Sadducees. Jesus appears to have accepted (or at least abided by and didn't object to) parts of it, while also being vehemently opposed to their reverance for it while He also rejected other aspects of it.

a_ntv · Jul 16, 2006

Splayd said:
Thanks for that. I will contemplate what you've shared here.
I wrote a paper on the beliefs and practices of the sects of 2nd Temple Judaism when I was at Bible College. I'm pretty confident on my ideas about them. You are right when you suggest that the Pharisees weren't always the strictest, but my comment was simply that they'd added some significant tradition to the law which was rejected by the Sadducees. Jesus appears to have accepted (or at least abided by and didn't object to) parts of it, while also being vehemently opposed to their reverance for it while He also rejected other aspects of it.

Yes, so we agree. From you post #77 I understood that you believed that the Sadducces were less tied on the law than the Pharisee. That is not: the pharisees were surelty more 'sophisticly' flexible about the law than Sadducees.
(and many scolars think that Jesus himself has been a prior pharisee, bc He used a typical pharisee way to prove his statments, and bc He went on, till the limit, in re-interpretering the Law. For sure He was miles away from the Saducces). Anyway that is for an other thread.

Back to the Eucaristic, the very ancient anaphoras (prayer of consacration) still tied with the early jewish-christian liturgies, had extremly clear the idea of sacrifrice : ad instance here are the words of the priest in an actual Mass on about the 360: "

Ambrose said:
21. Wilt thou know that it is consecrated by heavenly words? Hear what the words are. The priest speaks.3 “Make for us,” he says, “this oblation approved, ratified, reasonable, acceptable, seeing that it is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, who4 the day before he suffered took bread in his holy hands, and looked up to heaven to thee, holy Father, almighty, everlasting God, and giving thanks, he blessed, brake, and having broken, delivered it to his apostles and to his disciples, saying, Take, and eat ye all of this; for this is my body, which shall be broken for many.

My notes on prevuios passage:
Oblation = sacramentis
Figure, form latin figura, had in latin a very stronger meaning than the English figure. it is like 'historical figure'
Approved and Ratified=by the Father
Reasonable=according the Logos= the Word of John 1,1
This passage is important bc the liturgy is by far more conservative than the doctrine
Coptic liturgy have the same idea clearly expressed

Transubstantiation

Saved by Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

Saved by Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ

pursuing Christ

STRESSED spelled backwards is DESSERTS

Regular Member

Just some guy

Ens Liturgicum

Just some guy

pursuing Christ

Saved by Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ

Ens Liturgicum

Just some guy

Ens Liturgicum

Just some guy

Ens Liturgicum

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency