Could Jesus Christ have made the teaching of transubstantiation any more explicit?

Jesus was speaking symbolically. Literally drinking blood would have been a violation of the Mosaic law.

transubstantiation is a heresy

I find it truly amazing how the Catholics actually fall into the exact same error as the Jews. The only difference is that the Jews were smart enough to be repulsed by the idea and the Catholics get excited.

What you actually need to do is to look at the entire passage of John 6 to understand it. Then it is as plain as day that Jesus was not teaching anything close to Transubstantiation. In fact, He was speaking in an intentionally offensive way to get most of those following Him to leave.

Verses 1-13 describe the feeding of the 5000.
Verses 14-15 shows that Jesus could see that because of Him feeding them, they wanted to force Him to be king, so He made a choice to try to escape the crowd.
Verses 16-21 describe Jesus walking on the water.

At that point, we have Jesus trying to avoid this crowd and He being on the other side of the sea with His Disciples.
That's when, in verses 22-25 we see the crowd realizing Jesus is gone and trying to chase Him down, so they cross the sea too.

In verse 26, Jesus makes entirely clear what the crowd is looking for:
"Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled."
This crowd just wanted Jesus to feed them again. That was their sole goal, not that they wanted to really follow Him or His teaching.

Everything from here on out is Jesus trying to drive them away, because He didn't want them following Him, knowing they didn't want the right thing.

He tells them to seek God and not earthly food, and to seek God is to believe on the one sent (27-29). He said this, knowing that they didn't believe.
They shot back that they would believe if they had a sign, and the sign they wanted was for Him to feed them again (v. 30-31). This further proves that all they wanted was food, not the truth.

Jesus responds by telling them that they should seek the "bread" of eternal life by believing on Him, because they would be filled (v. 32-40). The big verse in that is verse 36, where He states again that He knew they didn't believe Him at all.

They responded by being upset at Him calling Himself the "bread of Heaven" (v. 41-42).

Jesus saw their confusion and offense at that statement (v. 43) and proceeded on to state it even more (v.44-51), so as to confuse and offend them even more!
They, of course, were now really upset (v. 52).
So, He continued to push them even farther by continuing (v. 53-59).

He got the result he was looking for in verse 60, when they began to reconsider following Him.

The verse that makes all of this the most clear is 61. He states plainly that He knew that they were offended by what He said, and then He in essence said, "hey, you're offended by that? How about I tell you this, because this will offend you more."
Verses 62-65 have Him giving that even more offensive statement about Him ascending into Heaven and showing that He knew that those He spoke to wouldn't believe.

The result was verse 66, where they left.

--------------------------------

So, the point of what Jesus was doing was to intentionally say things that offended the Jews there. He chose wording that was ambiguous and implied cannibalism to make them want to leave instead of continuing to follow and harrass Him.

But, somehow, the Catholics miss that point and think that Jesus is being literal. They fall into the same mistake as the Jews Jesus spoke to.
Jesus wasn't trying to teach truth in the verses you were citing, but trying to confuse and push people away. Too bad you don't try to understand the context, or this would be easy and obvious.

Jesus was obviously referring to His Words, Teaching, Gospel, Doctrine, Etc...If you love Me, keep My Commandents; teach them to observe all things whatsoever "I" have commanded you.

i think that there is a bigger than organic hazard that Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth. i do no longer evaluate he's the son of a deity even with the shown fact that a guy or woman who did no longer maintain the based thought technique of the term so he placed a thought technique extra suitable excellent to his own indoors ideals. He replaced into as quickly as anti-status quo (this is now no longer an insult; being anti-status quo isn't often a foul ingredient) subsequently arising friction between him and diverse theologians of the term. that's my own inner maximum thought that the people that shared his thought technique more advantageous his acceptance in basic terms so he became who he seems to be to many at present. You ask why would people adjust to or die for a reason for a lie. nicely thought recommendations and therein the religion invested during that's a challenge of concept. To the followers of christianity this is no longer a lie, to 3 non-believers this is and to 3 this is in basic terms in spite of that has been so tampered with via many people over so a protracted time that's tough to tell what truths or fallacies is additionally there. as with every technique of thought, for individuals who %. christianity that's a private decision.

1) Could Jesus Christ have made the teaching of transubstantiation any more explicit?

Well...of course he could have. He could have provided a detailed description such as that found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Because he did *not* give such a detailed description, it's quite easy (and not completely unreasonable) to claim, "He was speaking metaphorically"...especially when viewed in light of the Last Supper
"this [bread] is my body"
"this [wine] is my blood"

You can see how easily someone can conclude, "When he spoke of eating 'his body,' he *meant* the celebration of the Lord's Supper and the eating of the bread of the Lord's Supper, as he plainly informs us later in the same gospel. Likewise with respect to 'his blood.' "


This really is a hard one settle either way. As a Bible literalist, I tend to *always* favor the more literal interpretation and reject claims of metaphor when a metaphor is not *definitely and obviously* present. So - in this case - that means that I *favor* the idea of transubstantiation (though I remain unconvinced either way). However: surely you can see how someone - in this very particular case - can *reasonably* conclude that Jesus was speaking metaphorically rather than literally. After all: the bread does not appear to be Jesus' actual body, and the wine does not appear to be Jesus' actual blood. Isn't that a very good reason for someone to conclude that he was speaking metaphorically - and that it was obvious to his apostles that he was doing so?

As I said: it's a hard one to settle. In my opinion, neither side has a really persuasive argument in its favor. Both sides seem quite reasonable - one accepting a literal interpretation (which necessitates a difficult-to-swallow supernatural explanation, but that difficulty is well-supported in the next few verses of John 6), and one accepting a metaphorical interpretation (which requires a much easier-to-swallow explanation, but still difficult for the average non-Christian).

- Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/

where does this come from?
in the exodus Moses had through God provided manna (food) from heaven so the people could live.
in similar connections people at that time rejected the manna and wanted something different.

this was a foreshadowing of a future prophet that would come that would be greater then Moses and would also feed the people with manna (gospel) that those people would live (saved - eternal life).

so when Jesus was feeding the 1000s with just a little food (few fish and bread) the following week people came in greater numbers to be feed literally and not spiritually. Jesus rebukes them and says symbolically that Jesus's food is spiritual food and not literal food. (Jesus says He is the food - ie He is the eternal life)

now fast forward to the Lord's Supper. it is the same concept, the unleavened bread and unleavened wine are the representative of our spiritual food that will give us eternal life.

this is also why Paul (?) condemns people for going to church just to eat the food. Paul says to eat your food at home, but what your doing in the church is a spiritual rememberance of Jesus.

Transubstantiation is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines this doctrine in section 1376:

"The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: ‘Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that 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.’"

In other words, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that once an ordained priest blesses the bread of the Lord's Supper, it is transformed into the actual flesh of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of bread); and when he blesses the wine, it is transformed into the actual blood of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of wine). Is such a concept biblical? There are some Scriptures that, if interpreted strictly literally, would lead to the “real presence” of Christ in the bread and wine. Examples are John 6:32-58; Matthew 26:26; Luke 22:17-23; and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. The passage pointed to most frequently is John 6:32-58 and especially verses 53-57, “Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life … For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him … so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.’”

Roman Catholics interpret this passage literally and apply its message to the Lord’s Supper, which they title the “Eucharist” or “Mass.” Those who reject the idea of transubstantiation interpret Jesus’ words in John 6:53-57 figuratively or symbolically. How can we know which interpretation is correct? Thankfully, Jesus made it exceedingly obvious what He meant. John 6:63 declares, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” Jesus specifically stated that His words are “spirit.” Jesus was using physical concepts, eating and drinking, to teach spiritual truth. Just as consuming physical food and drink sustains our physical bodies, so are our spiritual lives saved and built up by spiritually receiving Him, by grace through faith. Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully and completely receiving Him in our lives.

The Scriptures declare that the Lord's Supper is a memorial to the body and blood of Christ (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25), not the actual consumption of His physical body and blood. When Jesus was speaking in John chapter 6, Jesus had not yet had the Last Supper with His disciples, in which He instituted the Lord’s Supper. To read the Lord’s Supper / Christian Communion back into John chapter 6 is unwarranted. For a more complete discussion of these issues, please read our article on the Holy Eucharist.

The most serious reason transubstantiation should be rejected is that it is viewed by the Roman Catholic Church as a "re-sacrifice" of Jesus Christ for our sins, or as a “re-offering / re-presentation” of His sacrifice. This is directly in contradiction to what Scripture says, that Jesus died "once for all" and does not need to be sacrificed again (Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18). Hebrews 7:27 declares, "Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself."

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/transubstantiation.html#ixzz2Qjg0JemU