Science vs Transubstantiation

there is nothing to explain... it does not change </font>[/QUOTE]Not in your church, no, it doesn't. Perhaps you should attend a Mass.

God bless,

Grant

 

I am doing no interpretation; I am taking Jesus at His word. He says that it IS His Body. I believe Him; you do not.

Amazing that He never said anything like that in John 6. And He said that we must eat (read: "gnaw," like an animal "gnaws") His Body.

Exactly how does interpreting His words to mean "believe in me" fit into the context of the multiplacation of loaves? Oh, it doesn't, which is why you offered no explanation for what you said. Rather, it is the Catholic Church that keeps this in context, because the miracle of the loaves shows how from one loaf, many came. Jesus is the "bread of life," and so, being God, His body can be infinitely present to us in the Eucharist. A multiplication of the Body of Christ, the Bread of Life. And when we receive him in the Eucharist, as those Jesus fed with the loaves, we are "satisfied."

Of course not; if you would listen to me, you'd know that this is a term derived many centuries later to help explain a Truth that was already there. Just as the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, but using that term helps us to better understand God. You have ZERO argument there. Paul DOES refer to the bread and wine as the "Body and Blood of Christ."

If Paul had meant to tell you it was symbolic, why wouldn't he? He never does. Jesus never does. John never does. You read it into the text.

I see. So it must be impossible for God. Good answer. :rollseyes:

Do a Google search on Eucharistic miracles.

Of course, because your church does not have valid orders, and there is no Eucharist in your church.

God bless,

Grant

 

If you said that Christ was spiritually present in the bread and wine, the above statement would be acceptable. But since you say the substance of the bread is changed into the substance of Christ, it should be scientifically provable, and since it is not, it is not true. Are you too blind to see the difference between the two? </font>[/QUOTE]When you prove that Jesus was God using science, you have an arguement. Until that time, you have nothing.

God bless,

Grant

 

Jesus said, "I am the bread of Life..." Then told us to eat the bread that is his body. Without being ignorant folks, do you truly think you can eat 2000 year old flesh of a body that died but did not remain dead, but was resurrected and ascended to a place where we cannot even see him. He is at the right hand of the Father who is spirit?

When I eat the Bread of Life, I am absorbing God's Holy Word and digesting it, taking Life giving nourishment from it. Therefore, the written word of God becomes "the flesh of Jesus". The Apostle John told us

To think that a cheap little wafer of bread becomes the flesh of Jesus is pure foolishness, especially in light of Jesus own words of who and what He is and that His words are the spirit that quickens us in Life.

Why don't you consume the pages of the bible, you'll be closer to the truth than eating a wafer of bread.

 

if the dna, molecules, nuclear particles, and quarks do not change... then what does?

if there is no difference between the bread before and after then there is no difference from communion at "a mass" and communion at my church... our breads dna, molecules, nuclear particles, and quarks do not change either...

i am just glad i cannot be killed for disbelieving anymore...

perhaps you should attend a service where you "do in remembrance of me."

 

They do change, only not detectable to us.

The difference doesn't have to be evident to be true.

Yes, THAT was on topic, now wasn't it?

What is this Sacrament called? (Catechism):

1330 The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection.

And Yelsew, you didn't answer my question. If you have Jesus living in you, how is that, since Jesus is both fully God AND fully human. Are you saying that only Jesus as God lives in you? I wasn't aware we could split Jesus natures apart; I thought they were indivisible.

God bless,

Grant

 

Science vs Transubstantiation

I'm floored. When science supports evolution, Christians scoff at science. yet, when science does not support transubstantiation, then everyone says "woohoo".

 

That's debatable at best and for another thread. Just had to get that in there, John.

Neal

 

The Word of God is living in me, and I am abiding in the Word.

The apostle John uses "the Word" often to describe Jesus. Therefore it is safe to say that Jesus is living in Me and I am abiding in Him.

Yes, I did answer your question, you simply do not understand the question you asked!

 

get a dictionary and then tell me how it changes, while remaining the same...

"that is the miracle of it"

no that is not a miracle. that happens all the time.

NEWS FLASH: bread stays bread!

wow miracle!

not to mention the offence to Our Lord if in fact he was not "speaking metaphoricaly" when he said "this do in remembrance of me"

 

Amen allelujia!

"Do X in rememberance of me" certainly places no limitations on what X might be. It most assuredly does not require X to be a strictly symbolical act, as you are arguing.

 

You are the one of no faith who must see visible, detectable results to have faith that something has happened. I am not bound by such strict rationalism. God is omnipotent, much more so than you give Him credit for. He does the impossible. You reject the impossible. Do the math.

Of course He was not speaking metaphorically. You force this notion into a Catholic belief that does not say such a thing, which is not at all a new practice for you. You, yourself, would go against your own definition, if you say that it is not a memorial because we believe Christ is present in the Eucharist, because you believe that He is spiriturally present. Thus, if memorials cannot be for those who are present, Christ is either not spiriturally present for you when you celebrate the Lord's Supper, or you are a liar.

who cares what it is called? might wanna start up a new thread for that one...</font>[/QUOTE]I kindly ask you to treat me more charitbly. I posted that to address this from you:

perhaps you should attend a service where you "do in remembrance of me."

Thus, I posted official Catholic teaching that states we do believe that it is a memorial. Your hostility was wasted.

Oh, it's not even "sun wafers" anymore. Now it's moon wafers. Your posts are getting so libelous that I will no longer respond to you on this thread. You have no desire to listen, only to be hostile, as your own words clearly testify. I try to answer your questions; you cannot demand more.

Of course, what is funny, is that in the above verse and explanation, you present a case, not of Jesus being present "where He wants to," but rather, "where He has promised to," which is exactly what we believe in regards to the Eucharist.

Even though this is not relevant to this particular line of dialogue, no, our version reads the same, and I believe it, as well.

I am not the one making libelous accusations.

God bless,

Grant

 

get a dictionary and then tell me how it changes, while remaining the same...
</font>[/QUOTE]And then look up how Jesus can be both fully God and fully man. Would that be under 'J' or 'G' or 'M' or ???

And ain't it glorious!

The once-for-all sacrifice of Christ, re-presented to the Father unceasingly, day in, day out, for the people of God. Ain't it glorious!

Exactly. Seems to make the concept of a simple memorial alone seem odd. Now, a memorial combined with the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ, combined with His gift of His own body, blood, soul and divinity to His people that they shall not die, now that's a rememberance worthy of the Lord!

This is my body...This is my blood... Somebody get that dictionary again and look up the meaning of the word "is".

In the meantime, the table is set, the banquet is served anew every day. Christ invites you. We Catholics invite you. All the angels and saints invite you. Come! Eat! Rejoice!

 

As a photographer, I have often when showing my pictures to others handed them an image of a place or thing and declared it to be the reality, when in truth, it was only an image that symbolized the place or thing.

I used words like, "this is Niagara Falls" If it were Niagara Falls that I handed them, they would get wet. It was instead a symbol that respresented there real thing. And that is what Jesus was doing when he used those same words.

Now if I presented one of my t-shirts to someone and said to them "this is my t-shirt" I would be handing them the real thing, and not a symbol.

Jesus did not rip his flesh and hand it to the apostles, He did not stab himself to give his blood. He did however hand to the apostles symbols of his flesh and blood. He did instead Give us his WORD to eat and His spirit for us to drink thereby taking his essence into ourselves. He thereby provides us with nourishment and refreshment even to today for those who abide in His Holy Word.

It is not difficult to understand, so long as you brush away 'the crap of religious dogma' so you can see the truth!

 

"When you show your little kid a book with a picture of a plane in it, and he asks "what's that?" pointing to the picture, do you say "that is a picture of a plane" or "that is a plane"? "Is" works either way! "

Hmmmm. So if you have a picture of a car and that car next to you would you say "this is a car" and point to the picture of that car? I suppose you might. But the child's being able to determine that the picture of a car was just a representation of the car and the real car was on the other side of him would depend on his being properly instructed as to what a picture is. Jesus blew that for them by confusing them with the words of John 6 a year earlier when he said "unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life within you" one year earlier near the passover. Seems he gave them a working definition of what the bread and the wine were and cleared it up in Matt 26. I won't go in to all the other evidence right now that shoots your arguement down. Don't have time.

of the cup this cup is the New Testament in my blood (Luke 22:20)
of the wine this is My blood of the New Testament (Mark 14:24)


Seems you are creating a bigger problem than you are trying to solve. Matt 26 says this is my blood. The words do not match in each instance exactly so were there three different passovers celebrated? No, the words have to be equivalent. Thus when he speaks of cup it is clear to me that he is speaking of what is in the cup and not the cup itself. Otherwise the three verses contradict.

"Futhermore, since the drinking of blood was forbiden in God's Covenant with Noah (and therefore with all men since the flood) and also under the OT in Leviticus 17 and under the NT in Acts 20, it is obvious that Jesus did not drink His own literal blood nor instruct others to do so, for such would be sin."

First off, Jesus did not drink it.

Luke 22:18
for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes."

Secondly the reason in the OT that one was not to drink of the blood of the animal was because it contained the life of the animal. We however want the life of Jesus in us. In Acts 10 God commands Paul to eat of things that were previously forbidden. i.e. he modified the dietary law. Jesus certainly can and did modify the prohibition against blood so that it does not include his blood transubstantiated. Where do you see a prohition in Acts 20 against ingesting the blood of the lord's supper? Also could you show me a place in the Bible where God asks someone to do something symbolically that is forbidden by his commandments. i.e. symbolically having sex with someone? or symbolically practicing idolatry for instance?

 

and you accuse me...

good. dont reply. it's like talking to a wall. a rude wall.

you need to say that Jesus is in the bread because you worship the bread. if Jesus was not in the bread i guess it would be idolatry

http://www.poorclares.org/eucharist.gif

 

The once-for-all sacrifice of Christ, re-presented to the Father unceasingly, day in, day out, for the people of God. Ain't it glorious!

no, it aint... it's disgusting unscriptural canabalisim/idolatry.

"ONCE for all"... thats your interp of once for all? "once-a-day, every-day"

 

Rakka,

I forgive you.

God bless you,

Grant