Transubstantiation - Is it a mircle?

It’s held by Lutherans to a certain extent along with Anglicans and the Orthodox Church.
Blessings
Bill

So is Jesus also a literal gate?

This is true.

My take on it is dont go beyond what is written.

The Bible does talk about not discerning the Lord's body. Of course the communion or eucharist is to be respected and holy and set-apart from just your regular meal. If you eat it as a joke, you can eat damnation to yourself, it is very serious.

The Bible says do this (communion) in memory of me. Flesh being the bread and wine being the blood.

I dont agree with many things with lutherans but this is one I agree with you and them about.

Jesus said what He said and people are going to two opposite extremes where its either transubstantiation and you need to go weekly to stay saved or they take the opposite extreme where its of little significance and you might as well replace the wine and bread with peanut butter and jelly as R.C. Sproul said regarding it. There needs to be a biblical view and thats the simple view Jesus said there.

Context matters.

Good day Aerials1978!

Transubstantiation is the belief that Jesus is called down by the priest into the Eucharist, so that the outer substance of it retains its appearance, but the whole substance of the bread and wine literally becomes the flesh and blood of the Lord Jesus.

On the night that Jesus was betrayed, at the supper He took bread and broke it saying, "this is My body which is broken for you." So, the bread is symbolic of His body that was broken for those who would believe in Him. Otherwise, He would have cut off a piece of His flesh and said this is my body. Likewise, He took the cup and said, "this is My blood which is poured out for the sins of many." We know that wine was in the cup, because He also said, "Truly I tell you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until I drink it anew with you in My Father's kingdom." Therefore, we know that the wine was symbolic representing the Lord's blood that was about to be shed. Not only that, but the drinking of the Lord's literal blood would go directly against God's command in the law to not eat blood.

These are the same people who teach that Mary was sinless, a perpetual virgin (even though the scriptures reveal that Mary and Joseph had other son's and daughters), the teaching of Purgatory, the sacraments and many other false teachings. This is an institution (Roman Catholicism) which displays an idolatrous Egyptian obelisk right out in plain sight.

On what subjects do you disagree with Lutherans? Maybe we can have a rational discussion.

100% agree with this....................

You also have to be able to discern between what is meant to be symbolic and what is literal, which you are not doing.

When the disciples gathered together, they broke bread and drank wine which is symbolically representing the Lord's body and blood. When I partake of this personally, I break real bread as being symbolic in remembrance of His body that was broken for me. Likewise, I drink grape juice which is symolic in remembrance of His blood that was shed for me. Never do I perform this as though I was consuming the literal flesh and liter blood of the Lord.

Bread = body of the Lord

Wine = blood of the Lord

Lutherans have two wings now, the liberal apostates and the more serious confessional side. I like the confessional side and consider them brothers of mine.

The things I disagree with are things like cessationism. A whole big can of worms

SHORT ANSWER: NO.

To understand transubstantiation, you must understand the Catholic teaching on their priests, as well as their changing the Lord's Supper into the Mass. The two are completely different.

The Mass is literally a RE-SACRIFICE of Christ by a Catholic priest. Thus they have an altar, a priest and a sacrifice. But the Mass violates the meaning of the finished work of Christ for our redemption. And it goes even further in distorting Gospel truth. Study the Catechism of the Catholic Church and also the Mass as described in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia.

Exactly.

Well you do what you do and I'll do what I do.

I'm with you on your first statement.
But I am leaning towards cessationism.

Yep from pagan religion

Granted. But I can tell you and everyone else reading this, that when you eat of the bread and drink the cup, you are not eating the literal flesh and blood of Christ. He is not coming down into that piece of bread as the Catholics would have us believe.

The bread and wine are symbolic of the Lord's body and blood, not literal. The fact that it states that the Lord took bread and broke it demonstrates that it was representing His body.

When we break bread and drink of the cup, we are doing so in remembrance of the Lord.

Transubstantiation is no miracle, it's more like sacrilege.

Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is for those who know not their maker.

Roman Catholic dogma is full of deception.

2 Corinthians 11:12-15
And what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. 13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.

We partially disagree and I will not be dissuaded from what I believe. I have examined the scriptures critically many times and prefere what is written to man's attempt to rationalize. I have explained my position already and do not care to again. Thank you for your time.

Way out of context. Abuse of the scriptures to state your point. This passage is not about communion at all.