Skip to main content

The King James Version of the Bible is NOT the only Divine Word of God

A Berean's Journey: Examining Claims about the King James Bible

Across the internet, many people who hold the belief that the King James Bible is the only true translation of God’s Word often quote Acts 17:11. The verse describes the people of Berea who were praised because "they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." I agree with this principle wholeheartedly. We are all called to be like the ancient Bereans—to approach every claim, no matter how strongly held, with a willingness to examine the facts and search for the truth. The purpose of this website is to begin that journey together. We will examine specific claims often made by those who hold a KJB-only position. We will use historical documents, scholarly research, and of course, scripture, to understand these topics more fully. The comments section is open for respectful dialogue and for others to share their research, questions, and insights. Let's reason together in a full and honest pursuit of the ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Transubstantiation: It Happens All The Time


The Eucharist: More Than Just Bread and Wine? A Look at Transubstantiation

I've been thinking a lot about the Eucharist lately, specifically the Catholic understanding of Transubstantiation. I came across a website that presented some arguments against it, suggesting it's not biblical, and even touched on the "cannibalism" idea. As a Christian, I wanted to really dig into this and understand what the Catholic Church teaches, why, and how it connects to the Bible and early Christian belief.

It's a big topic, so let's break it down!

What Exactly Is Transubstantiation? (And Why It's Not Cannibalism)

First off, the website I saw suggested that the idea of eating Christ's body and blood sounds like cannibalism. This is a common misunderstanding, and it's important to clarify what Catholics actually believe.

Transubstantiation isn't about eating human flesh and drinking human blood in a natural, physical sense. It's about a supernatural change that happens at the consecration during Mass. To understand this, it helps to distinguish between a thing's substance (its core reality) and its accidents (its outward, observable properties like taste, smell, and appearance).

  • The Catholic Church teaches that the substance of the bread and wine is completely converted into the substance of Christ's body and blood.

  • However, the accidents of the bread and wine remain unchanged.

So, when a Catholic receives the Eucharist, they are consuming what looks, tastes, and feels like bread and wine, but they believe they are truly receiving the spiritual presence of Jesus Christ himself under those forms. It's not about consuming human tissue, but about participating in a divine mystery. It's a spiritual nourishment, not a literal meal of human flesh.

The Biblical Basis: Taking Jesus at His Word

The website I read argued that the Bible doesn't support a literal interpretation of the Eucharist. But when I read the New Testament, I find some pretty compelling evidence that suggests Jesus meant what He said:

  1. The Words of Institution at the Last Supper: This is the cornerstone. In Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, and Luke 22:19-20, Jesus takes bread, breaks it, and says, "This is my body." Then he takes the cup, saying, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

    • Notice, He doesn't say "This represents my body" or "This symbolizes my blood." He says, "This IS my body/blood." While symbolic language is common in the Bible, in this context, the directness is striking.

  2. John 6: The Bread of Life Discourse: This chapter is incredibly powerful. Jesus tells the crowds, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink" (John 6:53-55).

    • The website suggested Jesus was speaking metaphorically here. However, Jesus uses very strong, graphic language (the Greek word trogo, often translated as "gnaw" or "chew") that left many of His disciples so disturbed that they "turned back and no longer walked with him" (John 6:66). If Jesus had only meant it symbolically, it's fair to ask why He didn't clarify for those who left Him. He let them go, emphasizing the difficulty of His teaching but not retracting it.

  3. Paul's Warning in 1 Corinthians: St. Paul also takes the Eucharist very seriously. In 1 Corinthians 10:16, he asks, "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"

    • Even more strikingly, in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, Paul warns: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup; for anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself."

    • This isn't just about disrespecting a symbol. Paul says we are guilty concerning the actual body and blood of the Lord if we receive unworthily, and we eat "judgment on himself" if we don't "discern the body." This language strongly implies a real presence, not just a remembrance.

Early Christians: No Doubt About the Real Presence

If the idea of the Eucharist being Christ's real body and blood was just a later invention, you'd expect the early Church Fathers to disagree or be silent on it. But what we find is consistent testimony to a profound belief in the Real Presence, long before the term "transubstantiation" was coined.

  1. Ignatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 107): Writing only years after the last Apostle died, Ignatius (a disciple of John the Apostle) wrote about heretics who "do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again." This shows that belief in the Eucharist as Christ's flesh was already a litmus test for orthodoxy.

  2. Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 155): In his First Apology, trying to explain Christian practices to the pagan Roman Emperor, Justin states: "For we do not receive these as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior, being incarnate by God's word, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnated Jesus." He's using the word "transformation" and explicitly stating it's Christ's flesh and blood.

  3. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. A.D. 180): A student of Polycarp (who was a student of John the Apostle), Irenaeus wrote in Against Heresies: "For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, after the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, an earthly and a heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity." He clearly sees a change, where the bread is no longer "common."

These early writings show a consistent belief in the Eucharist as truly the Body and Blood of Christ, not just a symbol. The term "transubstantiation" came much later to explain this mystery, but the belief in the Real Presence was there from the beginning.

What Non-Catholic Scholars (Even Some Protestants!) Have Said

While many Protestant denominations don't affirm transubstantiation, it's interesting to note that even some non-Catholic scholars acknowledge the strong historical and biblical arguments for the Real Presence.

  1. J.N.D. Kelly (Anglican Scholar): In his influential Early Christian Doctrines, Kelly states, "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood, was still fluid and undeveloped... Nevertheless, it is beyond dispute that the Eucharist was regarded as the sacrificial offering of the Body and Blood of Christ." He acknowledges the early Church's belief in the Real Presence, even if the precise theological explanation (transubstantiation) came later.

  2. Oscar Cullmann (Lutheran Theologian): A prominent New Testament scholar, Cullmann, while not endorsing transubstantiation, acknowledged the profound realism in the early Church's understanding of the Eucharist. He highlighted the seriousness with which figures like Paul viewed the participation in Christ's body and blood.

  3. Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran turned Orthodox Historian): In his monumental The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Pelikan traces the historical understanding of the Eucharist. He notes that the early Church "took for granted what was later called 'the real presence' of Christ in the Eucharist." He shows how the shift in later Protestantism toward a purely symbolic view was a departure from earlier Christian consensus.

These scholars, though not Catholic, recognize that the early Church held a very high and realistic view of the Eucharist, which aligns more closely with the Catholic understanding than a purely symbolic one.

My Conclusion

For me, when I look at Jesus' own words, the fervent belief of the early Christians, and even the historical acknowledgments from some non-Catholic scholars, the idea that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, though under the appearances of bread and wine, makes profound sense.

It's not cannibalism because the physical properties remain, and the reception is spiritual nourishment from our Lord, not a material consumption of human flesh. It's a mystery, yes, but a beautiful and life-giving one that has sustained believers for thousands of years. It's a consistent thread from Jesus' own mouth through the earliest days of the Church, affirming a living encounter with Christ in this sacred meal.

What are your thoughts? I'd love to hear them in the comments!




Comments

Post a Comment