Is the Bible God's Word? (Do you believe the Bible is the only word of God?)

“And we ANTIs are ‘hard’ on the MORMONs - the WANNABE ‘christians’ of today.”

LDS teaching is loaded with false doctrine - and they teaching regarding Jesus, is false. Jesus is “Son of God, the Word made flesh - Jesus is God, manifest in the flesh, and none come to the Father except through Him. Jesus said, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.

I choose not to attack them in a public way, have witnessed the true Christ to many of them individually. Our attacks on this site are mostly “preaching to the choir”.

It's not very Christian of you to take my quote out of context and misrepresent it. Here is what I wrote:

Perhaps the clearest Biblical support for oral tradition can be found in 2 Thessalonians 2:14(15), where Christians are actually commanded: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." This passage is significant in that (a) it shows the existence of living traditions within the the Apostolic teaching, (b) it tells us unequivocally that believers are firmly grounded in the Faith by adhering to these traditions, and (c) it clearly states that these traditions were both written and oral. Since the Bible distinctly states here that oral traditions--authentic and Apostolic in origin--are to be "held" as a valid component of the Deposit of Faith, by what reasoning or excuse do Protestants dismiss them? By what authority do they reject a clear-cut injunction of St. Paul?

Obviously, I was referencing 2 Thessalonians, and commenting on that passage, not Acts 17:11. Notice that 2 Thessalonians says that we should hold fast to tradition, oral OR written. The Bible does not contradict itself, and therefore, as I stated previously, your interpretation of Acts 17:11 is obviously incorrect, because it is inconsistent with other Scripture. Nothing in Acts 17:11 supports the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura, especially when you look at it in context of all the other Scripture I have cited in this thread. But, if that is not enough for you, there is more where those came from -- I imagine you haven't head them too often in your Protestant churches.

>>>The Bible says so. The Church recieved Christ’s promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18), that He would always be with it (Matt. 28:20), and that He would give it the Holy Spirit to teach it all truth. (John 16:13).

No where does it say that the Church, run by fallen men,
will always do what is right or always teach the truth. They
do fail regularly - sometimes catastrophically - and each
new generation seems to fail in a major way.

>>>In this one verse we note three very important things about the Bible and its interpretation: (a) the Bible contains passages which are not readily understandable or clear, a fact which demonstrates the need for an authoritative and infallible teacher to make the passages clear and understandable; (b) it is not only possible that people could “wrest” or distort the meaning of Scripture, but this was, in fact, being done from the very earliest days of the Church; and (c) to distort the meaning of Scripture can result in one’s “destruction,” a disastrous fate indeed. It is obvious from these considerations that St. Peter did not believe the Bible to be the sole rule of faith.
a. nowhere does it say an “infallible teacher” is possible
or needed. It simply says it is hard to understand.
b. sometimes it is church leaders that distort scripture
c. yep - but that doesnt’ support your conclusion, friend.

>>>The point here is that the Ethiopian’s statement verifies the fact that the Bible is not sufficient in itself as a teacher of Christian doctrine, and people who hear the Word do need an authority to instruct them properly so that they may understand what the Bible says.

Hence, the gift of teachers to the church!

>>>If the Bible were indeed sufficient of itself, then the eunuch would not have been ignorant of the meaning of the passage from Isaias.

Not so. It simply points out the need for the spiritual gift
of teachers God promises to give the church.

>>>2 Peter 1:20

“The alleged light of the false teachers was no light at all.
1:20 Peter wanted to add a word of clarification about Old Testament predictions. “First of all” probably means that what Peter proceeded to say was of first importance. Bible students have recognized that what he said about Messianic prophecy in particular is true of prophecy generally. “Prophecy” is another word for the Word of God since it is what the Old Testament writers “spoke forth,” the literal meaning of the Greek word propheteia, translated “prophecy.” Verse 21 helps explain what Peter meant by the last clause in verse 20.
1:21 What we have in Scripture did not originate in the minds of men but in the mind of God.
“False teaching flows from the minds of men and women; truth flows from the heart and mind of the living God.”66
The prophets did not simply give their interpretation of how things were or would be (v. 20). They spoke as God’s mouthpieces articulating His thoughts in words that accurately represented those thoughts. The Holy Spirit “moved” the prophets to do so as the wind moves a sailboat (cf. John 3:8). The same Greek verb (phero) occurs in Acts 27:15 and 17 to describe that action.
“The Spirit, not human volition, is the originating power in prophecy.”67

Tom Constable: Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible. Galaxie Software, 2003; 2003, S. 2 Pe 1:19-21

A reading of the context says you have drawn the wrong
conclusion about this passage. Have you considered the
possibility that you may be wearing colored glasses that
influence what you are seeing? It is a very human thing
to do.

In any case, maybe some day we can tour the Vatican archives
together and then have a great expresso in a local Italian
expresso shop, overlooking Vatican Square. :-) yum

best,
ampu

Thank you for your willingness to educate me, but as a confirmed Catholic and former alter boy, it is not necessary.

Well, then I am a little bit puzzled. I assume you are no longer a practicing Catholic, then, right? If you are, you must also realize that your positions are contrary to that of the Church. How do you reconcile this for yourself? If you are no longer a Catholic, what is your current denomination, if any? You also state that Sacred Tradition is "very useful," but "not equal to God's revealed and holy Word." If this is a misinterpretation, I trust you will correct me on this.

I don't know how you can say this, given the fact that the first Christians did not have a complete Bible. Nor does this statement make much sense when you consider that the Church produced the Bible and not vice-versa. How do you resolve this in your mind?

Let's consider the facts. Biblical scholars tell us that the last book of the New Testament was not written until the end of the 1st century A.D., that is, until around the year 100 A.D. THis fact would leave roughly a 65-year gap between Our Lord's Ascension into Heaven and the completion of the Bible as we know it. The question that begs to be asked here, therefore, is this: "Who or what served as the final, infallible authority during this time?"

If the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then since the Church existed for a time without the entire written Word of God, there would have been situations and doctrinal issues which could not have been resolved with finality until all of the New Testament books were complete. The ship would have been left without a rudder, so to speak, at least for a time. But this goes contrary to the statements and promises that Our Lord made about His Church--particularly, "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt. 28:20)--not to mention that He told His disciples: "I will not leave you orphans." (John 14:18).

You also quote Liftin:

Each local church supports the witness of each believer in it and holds that testimony up before the world. Paul did not elaborate how it does this here, though the models suggested by the terms “shepherd” (“pastor”), “elder,” “overseer,” and “deacon” provide some clues.

I am not sure I fully understand what this passage is meant to convey, but I believe I have already refuted this idea--which seems to be the idea that the Church is just the invisible collection of believers around the world. See my previous thread, above, which you may have already commented on--in which case I will reply shortly. There, I state that the Mystical Body of Christ, yes, is the Church, but the Church is also the unbroken Apostolic line that is represented by the visible Church as the Deposit of Faith.

Finally, no, the Church does not have the same history of vacillation and changes that the Protestant churches have had, not when it comes to major doctrinal issues. One must differentiate between Tradition (upper-case "T") that is part of divine Revelation, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, Church traditions (lower-case "t") that, although good, have developed in the Church later and are not part of the Deposit of Faith. An example of something that is part of Tradition would be infant Baptism; an example of a Church tradition would be the Church's calendar of feast days of Saints. Anything that is part of Tradition is of divine origin and hence unchangeable, while Church traditions are changeable by the Church. Sacred tradition serves as a rule of faith by showing whta the Church has believed consistently through the centuries and how it has always understood any given portion of the Bible. One of the main ways in which Tradition has been passed down to us is in the doctrine contained in the ancient texts of the liturgy, the Church's public worship.

so I heard :)

A.A.C.

...he asks him a very telling question: "Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?" Even more telling is the answer given by the Ethiopian: "And how can I, unless some man show me?"

Again; what the mna 'showed' him, was how to understand the SCRIPTURE - not some extra traditions.

If that is not enough for you, there is also 2 Peter 1:20, which states that "no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation." Here we see the Bible itself stating in no uncertain terms that its prophecies are not a matter for which the individual is to arrive at his own interpretation.

No; it ISN'T.

It means that the interpretation is PUBLIC - not some hidden away, arcane teaching.

When Scripture has to be 'explained' in a way that differs from what it PLAINLY says; then that 'interpretation' is undoubtably wrong.

This is not a tradition of men, but rather a tradition of the Church ...
Oh...

THAT's the difference then.

To the visible head of His Church, St. Peter, Our Lord said: "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdowm of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and, whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 16:19). It is plainly evident from these passages that Our Lord emphasized the authority of His Church and the role it would have in safeguarding and defining the Deposit of Faith.

Let's look at OTHER verses; too...

Is Peter the 'rock'?

NIV Matthew 4:18-19
18. As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen.
19. "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men."

NIV Matthew 8:14
14. When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.

NIV Matthew 10:1-2
1. He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.
2. These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John;

NIV Matthew 14:28-31
28. "Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water."
29. "Come," he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus.
30. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"
31. Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?"

NIV Matthew 15:13-16
13. He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots.
14. Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."
15. Peter said, "Explain the parable to us."
16. "Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.

As you can see, Simon was already known as 'Peter'

BEFORE the following verses came along.....

NIV Matthew 16:13-18
13. When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14. They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15. "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16. Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17. Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

19. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

NIV 1 Corinthians 10:4
4. and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

NIV Luke 6:48
48. He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built.

NIV Romans 9:33
33. As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

NIV 1 Peter 2:4-8
4. As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him--
5. you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
6. For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."
7. Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone, "
8. and, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they were destined for.

But, since there WAS no NT at the time Christ spoke to Peter, just what DID Peter and the rest of the Disciples know about ROCKS???

NIV Genesis 49:24-25
24. But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed limber, because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob, because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel,
25. because of your father's God, who helps you, because of the Almighty, who blesses you with blessings of the heavens above, blessings of the deep that lies below, blessings of the breast and womb.

NIV Numbers 20:8
8. "Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink."

NIV Deuteronomy 32:4
4. He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.

NIV Deuteronomy 32:15
15. Jeshurun grew fat and kicked; filled with food, he became heavy and sleek. He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Savior.

NIV Deuteronomy 32:18
18. You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth.

NIV Deuteronomy 32:30-31
30. How could one man chase a thousand, or two put ten thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, unless the LORD had given them up?
31. For their rock is not like our Rock, as even our enemies concede.

NIV 1 Samuel 2:2
2. "There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.

NIV 2 Samuel 22:2-3
2. He said: "The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer;
3. my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation. He is my stronghold, my refuge and my savior-- from violent men you save me.

NIV 2 Samuel 22:32
32. For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?

NIV 2 Samuel 22:47
47. "The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God, the Rock, my Savior!

NIV 2 Samuel 23:3-4
3. The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me: `When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God,
4. he is like the light of morning at sunrise on a cloudless morning, like the brightness after rain that brings the grass from the earth.'

NIV Psalms 18:2
2. The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.

NIV Psalms 18:31
31. For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?

NIV Psalms 18:46
46. The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Savior!

NIV Psalms 19:14
14. May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.

NIV Psalms 28:1

1. To you I call, O LORD my Rock; do not turn a deaf ear to me. For if you remain silent, I will be like those who have gone down to the pit.

NIV Psalms 31:2-3
2. Turn your ear to me, come quickly to my rescue; be my rock of refuge, a strong fortress to save me.
3. Since you are my rock and my fortress, for the sake of your name lead and guide me.

NIV Psalms 42:9
9. I say to God my Rock, "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?"

NIV Psalms 62:2
2. He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will never be shaken.

NIV Psalms 62:6
6. He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will not be shaken.

NIV Psalms 62:7
7. My salvation and my honor depend on God ; he is my mighty rock, my refuge.

NIV Psalms 71:3
3. Be my rock of refuge, to which I can always go; give the command to save me, for you are my rock and my fortress.

NIV Psalms 78:35
35. They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer.

NIV Psalms 89:26
26. He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.'

NIV Psalms 92:14-15
14. They will still bear fruit in old age, they will stay fresh and green,
15. proclaiming, "The LORD is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him."

NIV Psalms 95:1
1. Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation.

NIV Psalms 144:1
1. Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.

NIV Isaiah 17:10
10. You have forgotten God your Savior; you have not remembered the Rock, your fortress.

NIV Isaiah 26:4
4. Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD, is the Rock eternal.

NIV Isaiah 30:29
29. And you will sing as on the night you celebrate a holy festival; your hearts will rejoice as when people go up with flutes to the mountain of the LORD, to the Rock of Israel.

NIV Isaiah 44:8
8. Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

NIV Habakkuk 1:12
12. O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment; O Rock, you have ordained them to punish.

.....No other rock.............

Our attacks on this site are mostly “preaching to the choir”.

Until someone GOOGLES® something that we have discussed here...

>>>If you are, you must also realize that your positions are contrary to that of the Church.

Yes. The great news is that they are in line with God's Word. I can live with that dichotomy.

>>>I don't know how you can say this, given the fact that the first Christians did not have a complete Bible.

What a blessing that we do today! Great news, huh!

>>>Nor does this statement make much sense when you consider that the Church produced the Bible and not vice-versa. How do you resolve this in your mind?

The Church didn't produce the Bible. The Church, as an instrument of God, formalized the Canon of Scripture - for which all Christians should be thankful. Count me in!

>>>The question that begs to be asked here, therefore, is this: "Who or what served as the final, infallible authority during this time?"

The existing portions of God's Word (the Hebrew Scriptures and completed Books) and the authority of the Apostles who were alive at the time.

>>>If the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then since the Church existed for a time without the entire written Word of God, there would have been situations and doctrinal issues which could not have been resolved with finality until all of the New Testament books were complete. The ship would have been left without a rudder, so to speak, at least for a time.

See above

>>>But this goes contrary to the statements and promises that Our Lord made about His Church--particularly, "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt. 28:20)--not to mention that He told His disciples: "I will not leave you orphans." (John 14:18).

I know the verses. I don't think they support your conclusion.

>>>I believe I have already refuted this idea--which seems to be the idea that the Church is just the invisible collection of believers around the world.

You spoke to your believe about this issue, but let me say with genuiness, I don't find your view to coincide with the Biblical view, so I don't find it convincing. The Church, the Bride of Christ, is composed of all Christians (alive or dead) who are sealed in Christ by the Holy Spirit. On earth, among the living, the Church is composed of gatherings of believers - regardless of denomination - who have received God's gift of grace. So I agree, we are not completely invisible! I'm a member of the Catholic Church - just not the Roman variety.

>>>There, I state that the Mystical Body of Christ, yes, is the Church, but the Church is also the unbroken Apostolic line that is represented by the visible Church as the Deposit of Faith.

Thanks. Read your statement. The Greek Orthodox Church would have some things to say to you about who has the unbroken line of Apostolic succession. Personally, I do not see that concept in Scripture, nor necessary to establish a gathering of believers into a church. Nor do I see that as a required definition of the Church. I don't see that in the scriptures either. Do you have a passage that states this?

>>>Finally, no, the Church does not have the same history of vacillation and changes that the Protestant churches have had, not when it comes to major doctrinal issues.

Ah, my FRiend. I've studied more pages of Church history than I ever wanted to, including the history of doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church. I find much disagreement with your statement.

>>>An example of something that is part of Tradition would be infant Baptism;

I'd love to see that in Scripture.

>>>Anything that is part of Tradition is of divine origin and hence unchangeable

Made up out of the opinion of men, unfortunately - not revealed by God. The claim of divine origin is unprovable.

>>>Sacred tradition serves as a rule of faith by showing whta the Church has believed consistently through the centuries and how it has always understood any given portion of the Bible.

"Always", I would find to be an inaccurate description of many doctrines, based on Church history. What you view as "Sacred Tradition", I have no problem with, as long as it doesn't violate the clear teaching of scripture. If it does, it doesn't matter what men call it. If scripture is silent (in that case), there is room for practice. No argument from me on that. Our point of difference is that I don't find the concept of Sacred Tradition provable... so I guess we have to disagree.

>>>One of the main ways in which Tradition has been passed down to us is in the doctrine contained in the ancient texts of the liturgy, the Church's public worship.

Ditto above.

I've learned that I have far more in agreement - and the essentials of the Christian faith - in common with your Church than we have differences. Other groups who are represented on this thread, like the cultic mormonite group, are a whole new religion. Are you aware that they have restored what your group lost? They don't need the Apostolic succession either, they have a "Living Prophet"! :-)

best,

ampu

I choose not to attack them in a public way, have witnessed the true Christ to many of them individually.

Good for you, but since I have SEEN the comments made toward and about CHRISTIANS from the publishing house of the LDS Organization®; I can only assume that these are not a PRIVATE teaching of the head men at SLC, but something that is PUBLICALLY known; for we can yank up most all of them from LDS sources on the WEB.

If they come out PUBLICALLY on FR and spout their 'beliefs' then by golly, they are liable to get an earful of why their belief system is built upon the foundation of a couple of lying demons who spoke to Joseph Smith.

It's not very Christian of you to take my quote out of context and misrepresent it.

It is VERY 'Christian' of me to take a CERTAIN verse and point out what it PLAINLY says.

I imagine you haven't head them too often in your Protestant churches.

You may 'imagine' all you wish - or even visit some time.

You may be surprised.

...your interpretation of Acts 17:11 is obviously incorrect, because it is inconsistent with * other Scripture.

* 'how WE interpret'

2 Peter 1:20 does not mean a private vs public interpretation of the Bible, where "private" would mean "hidden, arcane interpetation." This is a misreading of the passage.

Take a look at the New International version of the Bible -- a Protestant Bible, by the way -- and you will see another translation that clarifies the meaning here:

2 Peter 1:20-21 (New International Version)
20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.
21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Here, what was "private interpretation" is translated as "own interpretation." The contrast therefore is, as I stated previously, a contrast between an individual interpretation versus the authoritative interpretation of the Church. Remember, this is even a Protestant Bible, and the Roman Catholic Church's interpretation of this Scripture is clearly the accurate one, in contrast to your "arcane" interpretation.

Secondly, in regard to the Ethiopian, yes, the man was told how to understand Scripture, which is precisely my point. He was not able to understand the Scipture on his own, as Sola Scriptura would imply. He needed the teachings of an authority, St. Philip, (who is granted authority by virtue of his relationship to the Church) in order to understand the true meaning of the Scripture. That's exactly the point I was making, and that's why this passage refutes the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Remember, St. Philip was not one of the 12 Apostles, but was commissioned by the Apostles (see Acts 6:6) and was therefore able to preach the Gospel with authority (Acts 8:4-8) -- which is why His teaching relects legitimate Apostolic teaching.

The obvious implication is that the Bible is NOT sufficient in itself as a teacher of Christian doctrine. Also required is an authority to instruct the reader in the proper interpretation. Who is the proper authority? The authority granted by Apostilic tradition -- in other words: the Church. The meaning is plain, clear and obvious, not arcane or esoteric in any way.

“If they come out PUBLICALLY on FR and spout their ‘beliefs’ then by golly, they are liable to get an earful of why their belief system is built upon the foundation of a couple of lying demons who spoke to Joseph Smith.”

Likely so. As for lying demons, J Smith was himself one of them evil liars

It is VERY 'Christian' of me to take a CERTAIN verse and point out what it PLAINLY says.

Any objective witness would attest that you took my quote out of context. I will have to leave it at that.

My interpretations of the Bible are very clear, plain and obvious, not in any way arcane or esoteric. If you believe otherwise, you are welcome to make your case, and I will be happy to tell you my grounds for having the better interpretation. I ask however that you do not take my quotes out of context, and trust you will do so. Otherwise, of course I will have to call you on it.

I guess that transubstantiation thing is mere 'misunderstanding' between good men.

I don't know what you are driving at here, but the doctrine of transubstantiation is plainly, clearly and obvious when the Bible is interpreted literally, as you have already stated it should be interpreted.

The first writer of the New Testament was the apostle Paul. His Letter to the Corinthians was written as early as 56 AD, earlier than the first Gospel, Mark's, written about 64 AD. Paul was also not an eyewitness to what he wrote but testifies to his source.

1 Cor 11:23-29
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

The next New Testament text in chronological order would have been Mark's Gospel. Written about 64 AD, in Rome, Mark, not an eyewitness, probably heard the account of the Last Supper he recorded from the Apostle Peter.

Mk 14:22-24
While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many."

The third account of the Last Supper could be Matthew's. Matthew, the tax collector Levi, was an eyewitness to the meal. He was one of the twelve Apostles. Matthew probably wrote his Gospel in the 70's.

Mt 26:26-28
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins."

Luke's account of the Last Supper, written from the standpoint of a Gentile convert and a non-eyewitness, probably heard the details of the Last Supper from Paul. Luke was a traveling companion of Paul. Luke also wrote in the 70's.

Lk 22:15-20
He (Jesus) said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer, for, I tell you, I shall not eat it (again) until there is fulfillment in the kingdom of God." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and said, "Take this and share it among yourselves; for I tell you (that) from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you."

The beloved disciple, John, the last of the New Testament writers, wrote his Gospel in the 90's. John was an eyewitness to the events of the Last Supper (Jn 6:30-68).

Jn 6:53-56
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."

Hence Catholic Christian belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist rests upon the literal meaning of the words of the Last Supper as recorded by the Evangelists and Paul.

The uniformity of expression across the first four authors affirms the literalness. Belief in the real presence demands faith--the basis of new life as called for by Christ throughout scripture. But faith in signs conferring what they signify is the basis also for the Incarnation--appearances belying true meaning. The true significance of the real presence is sealed in John's gospel. Five times in different expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of what he means.

Jn 6:51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.

Jn 6:53
Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

Jn 6:54
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.

Jn 6:55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Jn 6:56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

The best way a person can make a clear literal point is repetition of the same message in different ways. Jesus did this. Those around him clearly understood what he was saying--cannibalism and the drinking of blood--both forbidden by Mosaic Law.

Jn 6:60,66
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" ... As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

Had these disciples mistaken the meaning of Jesus' words, Jesus would surely have known and corrected them. He didn't. They had clearly understood his meaning--Jesus' flesh was to be really eaten; his blood to be really drunk.

Non believers often respond that even at the Last Supper, the apostles did not sense that they had flesh in their hands and blood in their cup. But Jesus is God. The creative literalness of the words: "This is my body; this is my blood" must be believed. God cannot lie. And God can turn bread into flesh and wine into blood without the appearances of bread and wine changing.

Medieval philosophers and theologians called this expression of Divine Truth and Creative Power "transubstantiation". Yes, God can change the substance of any created matter while the appearances remain unchanged. And this demands faith.

Paul confirms elsewhere in his letters the reality of the real presence.

1 Cor 10:16
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? The persuasion of the Church from Apostolic times about the objective reality of these words of Christ is clear from many documents.

Irenaeus (Asia Minor, 140 - 202), Tertullian (Rome, 160 - 220), Cyprian (Carthage, 200 - 258) are just a few of the earliest who attest to the objective reality of the words of Christ.

In the Church in Alexandria, Athanasius (293 - 373) and Cyril (376 - 444) equally attest to the literal meaning of the words of Christ at the Last Supper.

In the Church in Palestine, Cyril (Jerusalem, 315 - 387) and Epiphanius (Salamis, 367 - 403) also affirm in their teaching the same reality.

Unanimity is found across the universal church until the 11th century. Berengar (Tours, France, 1000 - 1088) was one of the first to deny the real presence by arguing that Christ is not physically present, but only symbolically.

The Council of Rome (a local council), 1079, taught against Berengar that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ.

By the 16th century, some Reformers (excluding Luther) also taught that Christ's presence in the Eucharist was only figurative or metaphorical. Since there were other opinions being taught as truth (figurative presence and metaphorical presence) a teaching authority had to be appealed to discern error from the truth. The way of the Church was to follow the model of Acts 15.

The Council of Trent (1545 - 1563) defined the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Eucharist as both the continuing sacrifice of Christ and a real sacrament. The institution of the Eucharist as sacrament was contained in the words "Do this in remembrance of me."

Roman Catholic Christians celebrate the Eucharist in the liturgical act called the Mass. The word Mass comes from the Latin missa ("sent"). It was taken from the formula for dismissing the congregation: Ite missa est ("Go, the Eucharist has been sent forth") referring to the ancient custom of sending consecrated bread from the bishop's Mass to the sick and to the other churches.

The Mass contains two parts: the liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word is a copy of the Jewish synagogue service of the first century: readings from Scripture followed by responses from the congregation often from the Book of Psalms. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is a reenactment of the Last Supper. A celebrant does what Christ did: take bread and wine and say the same words Christ said and then share the now consecrated bread and wine with the congregation.

Roman Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and remain such until the elements are entirely consumed. The Body and Blood not consumed at one Eucharist are reserved for the next celebration of the Eucharist and venerated as the Body and Blood of Jesus.

Roman Catholic Christians take the word of God seriously and seek to remember Christ in the Last Supper "as often as" possible. And in doing this proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

1 Cor 11:24-26
"This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

Lk 22:19
"This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me."

Catholic Christians also believe that there is only one sacrifice, Jesus', but following the command "as often as" to proclaim the death of the Lord, the sacrifice of Christ is made physically present to every Christian in all places in every age. The Eucharist makes the atemporal aphysical actions of Christ's redeeming action truly present to us always and everywhere. This is incarnational.

Following the word of God, Catholics also know that Christ is not and cannot be resacrificed. This has never been the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Heb 10:12
But this one (Jesus) offered one sacrifice for sins ...

Heb 7:27
He has no need, as did the high priests, to offer sacrifice day after day, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did that once for all when he offered himself.

Heb 9:25-28
Not that he might offer himself repeatedly ... But now once for all he has appeared at the end of the ages to take away sin by his sacrifice. ... Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many ...

The constant faith of the Church from the Apostolic Fathers attests to the fact that the Mass was the one Sacrifice of Calvary made present to the faithful.

Cyprian (Carthage, 200-258), Letters, No 63:9 (To Caecilian)
In which portion we find that the cup which the Lord offered was mixed, and that that was wine He called His Blood. Whence it appears that the blood of Christ is not offered if there be no wine in the cup, nor the Lord's sacrifice celebrated with a legitimate consecration unless our oblation and sacrifice respond to His passion.

The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this statement explicitly.

Catechism Section 1085
In the Liturgy of the Church, it is principally his own Paschal mystery that Christ signifies and makes present. During his earthly life Jesus announced his Paschal mystery by his teachings and anticipated it by his actions. When his Hour comes, he lives out the unique event of history which does not pass away: Jesus dies, is buried, rises from the dead, and is seated at the right hand of the Father "once for all." His Paschal mystery is a real event that occurred in our history, but it is unique: all other historical events happen once, and then they pass away, swallowed up in the past. The Paschal mystery of Christ, by contrast, cannot remain only in the past, because by his death he destroyed death, and all that Christ is -- all that he did and suffered for all people -- participates in the divine eternity, and so transcends all times while being made present in them all. The event of the Cross and Resurrection abides and draws everything toward life.

Catechism Section 1104
Christian liturgy not only recalls the events that saved us but actualizes them, makes them present. The Paschal mystery of Christ is celebrated, not repeated. It is the celebrations that are repeated, and in each celebration there is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit that makes the unique mystery present.

The Roman Catholic Church through history approached her faith life with the clarification of language. That is, she translated the essentials of revealed faith into the vocabulary of living language.

--To the revealed Word that there is "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" the Church labeled the belief "Trinity."
--To the revealed Word that the "Son of God became man" the Church labeled the belief "Incarnation."
--To the revealed Word that the "blood of Christ spilled on Calvary saved us" the Church labeled the belief "Redemption."
--To the revealed Word that "my flesh is true food, my blood is true drink" the Church labeled the belief "Transubstantiation."

Transubstantiation reflects Roman Catholic faith in the literalness of the words of the Bible.

Jesus (omnipotent God) said: "This is my body; this is my blood." And again Jesus said: "I am the bread of life;" "My flesh is true food; my blood is true drink;" "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood ...;" etc.

Roman Catholics take Jesus at His word: the bread is his body; the wine is his blood.

From the Apostles at the Last Supper until today, the bread and wine of Eucharist looks and feels and tastes like bread and wine in the eating and drinking.

Similar to all of God's Word, faith is essential. Faith in what? In the words of Jesus even though the bread does not look, feel, taste like flesh; even though the wine does not look, feel, taste like blood.

Medieval philosophers and theologians sought simply to label this simple biblical faith: Jesus said that bread is his body and wine is his blood even though it did not appear to change into visible flesh and blood.

Transubstantiation means the substance part of the bread and wine elements changes; but the accidental parts--sight, taste, smell, touch--do not. Catholics believe that since Jesus said it and He is God, he can do it. They believe! "Transubstantiation" merely labels it.

In everyday life, it is not at all uncommon to believe in things man cannot perceive by the senses: wind, electricity, love, peace, etc. All the more when Jesus says it.

Reference: http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap060500.htm

I guess that "PETER is the rock" thing is mere 'misunderstanding' between good men as well...

What's your point? Please clarify.

Instead of trying to getting some extra mileage out of a dead horse, why can't you address what I said.

Dead horses, sorry, there were none to kill here in the americas between 600 BC and 400 AD.

I belong to the church of Jesus Christ.

To which "true" christianity are you referring?

What are you referring to?
FLDS
Morrisites (Oops, Young already massacred them)
RLDS
Peyote Way Church of God

BTW, still waiting to hear where all of the artifacts from the bom era are located at - should be enough to fill multiple museums.