The Epistles are the doctrinal teachings of the new church written by those that were there..not one reference to the bread being the actual body of Christ..a rememberance to be treated solomely like the passover..a holy time of Gods presence..but no mention that even the disciples that were there understood it to be the actual body..
Once again, you fail to distinguish between "transubstantiation" as an explanation of the belief, and the belief itself.
Catholic Christians always have believed in the Real Presence. The philosophical constructs used in the definition of transubstantiation are now the accepted way of describing in more detail the miracle.
Or are you one of those who think that nobody believed things fell to the ground before Newton defined gravity?
The Epistles are the doctrinal teachings of the new church written by those that were there..not one reference to the bread being the actual body of Christ..a rememberance to be treated solomely like the passover..a holy time of Gods presence..but no mention that even the disciples that were there understood it to be the actual body..
You know this isn't true. Paul writes of those who do not "discern the body" eating their own damnation. There are other examples, which you have been shown before. Really.
SD
Apparently it still is. :o)
The Epistles are the doctrinal teachings of the new church written by those that were there..not one reference to the bread being the actual body of Christ..a rememberance to be treated solomely like the passover..a holy time of Gods presence..but no mention that even the disciples that were there understood it to be the actual body..
No mention doesn't necessitate no belief. Scripture appears to be an abridged version of events. Sole reliance on it could be limiting. See John 20:30-31 and John 21:25. I would also point out that understanding can take on evolutionary processes. You mentioned earlier that Peter did not have the same kind of conversion that Paul did. Peter's was an ebb and flow, a slow lifting of the curtain, which I think is the more common way (as opposed to being knocked off your horse, blinded, and exposed to disembodied voices. Yet, Paul also confesses his experience with uncertainty in 1 Cor.13:12. Thus, it is not excluded from the realm of possibility that institutional understanding can follow the precedent set by the great apostles. In the case of John 6:64, it is evident from the nonexistence of any kind of controversy, that a different interpretation than Quester's was applied to the verse in question. That was my only point regarding Post #27.