Science vs Transubstantiation

[Ray Berrian]

W. Putnam,

There was enough spiritual food in your posted prayer to feed our souls for weeks if Christians take time to reflect on it. It was Christ focused; I like that.

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
W. Putnam,

There was enough spiritual food in your posted prayer to feed our souls for weeks if Christians take time to reflect on it. It was Christ focused; I like that.

Thank you, Ray!

The Anima Christi (Soul of Christ) prayer is a most beautiful prayer! We recite it every Wednesday morning before the exposed Blessed Sacrament.

I have most recently adopted it as one of my "tag lines."

I could not respond to your private message, as your mail box is full!

You will need to delete some of them...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


"Gloria in excelsis Deo"

(Intoned by the celebrant of the Mass.)

(The choir response.)

Et in terra pax homininus
bone voluntatis
Laudamus te
Benedicimus te
Adoramus te
Glorificamus te,
Gratias agimus tibi propter
magnum gloriam tuum.
Domine Deus, Rex Coelestis,
Deus Pater omnipotens
Domine Fili unigenite
Jesu Christe Domine Deus
Agnus Dei Filius Patris
Qui tollis peccata mundi
miserere nobis.
Qui tollis peccata mundi,
suscipe deprecationem nostram.
Qui sedes ad dexteramPatris,
miserere nobis.
Quoniam tu solus Sanctus,
Tu solus Dominus
Tu solus Altissimus
Jesu Christe.
Cum Sancto Spiritu
in gloria Dei Patris
Amen.

- The Ambrosian Gloria -


http://www.solesmes.com/sons/gloria.ram

(Real monks chanting....)


Gregorian Chant - God's music!

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Singer:
The older I get, the more I find myself deficient before the Lord!

That's odd....coming from a perfect system that was appointed by Jesus
himself and with a history of 2000 years; ruled by umpteen popes. Can't
they seem to get it right for their followers...? Maybe baptismal regeneration
doesn't work afterall.

Mr. Singer, I am so glad to meet the perfect Christian! Is that you, Singer? Do you wear the largest of "phylacteries" so that you will be noticed by others?

I'm sorry that I don't live up to your standards, Singer. I am just a poor sinner that needs to get closer to the Lord!

And the daily Eucharist is my way of doing that!

If all else fails, accept the Lord and HIS righteousness !!

The Lord never fails me, ever, Mr. Singer; it is I that fail HIM!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not
thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:
Lest the LORD see it, and it displease him, and he turn
away his wrath from him.
Proverbs 24:17-18

 

[Singer]

And the daily Eucharist does that?
What could flour and drink do for your soul ?

We're actually on the same level re status with God.
We are both forgiven sinners if we rely on the completion of the work on the
cross and not on our own doing.

Has baptismal regeneration accomplished anything in you or is it not more of the
sign that you have proposed to follow Jesus....which it is?

If the proposed "church that Jesus established" has given no advantage to you,
then it may be a falsehood.

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Singer:
And the daily Eucharist does that?
What could flour and drink do for your soul ?

We're actually on the same level re status with God.
We are both forgiven sinners if we rely on the completion of the work on the
cross and not on our own doing.

Has baptismal regeneration accomplished anything in you or is it not more of the
sign that you have proposed to follow Jesus....which it is?

If the proposed "church that Jesus established" has given no advantage to you,
then it may be a falsehood.

You are correct IF being a member of her has no advantages.

One of these days, I will list all of the advantages for you............but, I see you have already rejected one of them: The Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist.

Have a nice day, Singer, and please pray for me, a sinner. I will do likewise for you...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima Christi -

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.

 

[BobRyan]

Response to Putman June 18 - 7:59

quote:bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
58"This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever."

Now Christ moves clearly to PAST tense again in terms of WHEN the BREAD of heaven - MANNA CAME down. The MANNA illustration - EXPLICITLY brought into the John 6 text by Christ - teaches the following lesson - by the EXPLICIT statement of the infallible Word []"Man does NOT live by bread alone - but BY EVERY WORD that comes from the MOUTH of GOD".[/b] Deut 8:2-4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, the Manna is referred to as a precursor...

Jesus is arguing that manna is bread illustration of what He is doing spiritually. Type vs antitype.

However - in this case God HIMSELF gives the spiritual "applicatio" for the manna in Deut 8:3 which is the same one Christ makes in Matt 4 and the SAME point again in John 6 "They shall ALL be taught of God"
- "My WORDS are Spirit and are Life"
- "He who COMES to Me and BELIEVES".

As God stated in Deut 8 and Christ stated in Matt 4 as Christ stated in John 6 - this spiritual fact was "Already true" - it was not "going to be true some day".

The lesson of Manna according to Christ - the bread (Christ) ALREADY came down out of heaven -
His Flesh was ALREADY Food "My Flesh IS FOOD" said Christ in John 6.

He did not direct them to a future time and say "JUST like the manna came down for Israel so in the future the Bread of Life will finally come down and be available on Earth" - as the RCC hopes to find in this chapter.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice that God has used this SAME illustration of EATING the WORD - as RECEIVING and BELIEVING in Ezek 2:

8"Now you, son of man, listen to what I am speaking to you; do not be rebellious like that rebellious house. Open your mouth and eat what I am giving you."

9Then I looked, and behold, a hand was extended to me; and lo, a scroll was in it.

10When He spread it out before me, it was written on the front and back, and written on it were lamentations, mourning and woe.


Again in Ezekiel

3:1Then He said to me, "Son of man, eat what you find; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel."

2So I opened my mouth, and He fed me this scroll. 3He said to me, "Son of man, feed your stomach and fill your body with this scroll which I am giving you." Then I ate it, and it was sweet as honey in my mouth.

4Then He said to me, "Son of man, go to the house of Israel and speak with My words to them.

5"For you are not being sent to a people of unintelligible speech or difficult language, but to the house of Israel,

6 nor to many peoples of unintelligible speech or difficult language, whose words you cannot understand. But I have sent you to them who should listen to you;
7yet the house of Israel will not be willing to listen to you, since they are not willing to listen to Me. Surely the whole house of Israel is stubborn and obstinate.

8"Behold, I have made your face as hard as their faces and your forehead as hard as their foreheads.

9"Like emery harder than flint I have made your forehead. Do not be afraid of them or be dismayed before them, though they are a rebellious house."
10Moreover, He said to me, "Son of man, take into your heart all My words which I will speak to you and listen closely.

Ok so Christ uses the symbol of Manna (Which God's word SAYS - teaches the lesson of LIVING by the WORD of God) AND that same illustration of God's WORD as FOOD is used again in Ezekiel.

But is it REALLY REALLY the right interpretation for John 6 - Christ HIMSELF tells us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill
Way too tenuous to make a claim here, that the "eat Christ (or His word)" is to simply to believe in Him,

Exegesis - demands "context". The listeners of Christ already knew this text - they already HAD this as a context. They were already AWARE that God used the Word in that way.

Exegesis - demands "context". John is writing to HIS readers and knows that they TOO have John 1:1 as a "context" for John 6. "The WORD became FLESH".

Bill
In my experience with isegesis, it is dangerous to venture too far to find context,

That might be true of eisegesis - but for exegesis as noted above - the Start of the book of John AND the OT "context" of Christ's hearers regarding the need to "EAT" the Word - is key "context" information" for those standing there and in the case of the book - for the first century "readers" - the primary audience.

Bill said
Well, you quoted more if it then I did, which is fine. But again, does this mean that to "Eat Christ" is to simply believe in his Word?

Let us "observe" IN the chapter the many times Christ insists that they "Believe in Him" and "Be Taught of God" and "Come to HIM in Faith" and the application of God's OWN Deut 8:3 spiritual application of Manna - VS the number of times Christ makes reference to a future passover meal in John 6 on the day after the feeding of the 5,000.

What do you think the count will be?

Bill

I would submit that to "Eat Christ" as in the Eucharist,

Would be "eisegeting" John 6 25-68 unless you actually find Christ talking about Passover meal, or Lord's Table, or liturgy of the same etc.

But as in the "count" above - we found "zero" to be the correct number - which means you simply have to read it "INTO" the chapter - eisegesis.

Bill
Why would one consume the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist if they did not believe in Christ and His word?

Many - many Christians today - observe the Lord's table and take in the symbol of eating the bread - as "My words ABIDING in you" - as believing the Word of Christ - but they do NOT engage in idolatry as does the RCC.

They "Believe the Word" but do not make the Catholic error in this case.


(Recall that the RCC argues that IF non-Catholic Christians are correct about this symbol - using just the explicit statements of John 6 - then the RCC is in fact practicing idolatry - for it "Worships" the bread itself).

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 6:61"Does this cause you to stumble? 62"What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?

63"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

64"But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.

65And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."
Peter's Confession of Faith

66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.

67So Jesus said to the twelve, "You do not want to go away also, do you?"

68Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.

Yes - taking Him literally here means walking up NOW and taking a BITE out of Him NOW or else not having true LIFE - NOW. This is the TENSE used by Christ. (as was made explicit in the Tense He used in Vs 32-58.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This tense was "Shown" in vs 32-58.

Bill said -Hogwash! What it means is exactly what it means,

QUOTE: Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And it is TRUE using HIS own statments regarding the TRUE use of His WORD - it was TRUE THEN that they must DIGEST His WORD THEN and that if they did not - then RIGHT then - they did NOT have eternal life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill said
no one dares to do what you suggest, but rather wait in patient faith to the culmination of what Christ is instituting here - The Holy Eucharist!

Nothing in John 6 shows the disciples to be "lookig forward to a Passover supper when this WILL someday be true". ALL of the faithLESS disciples show they see Him claiming to things ALREADY as fact AS do the faithFULL when they affirm HIS OWN summary of the discussion.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christ HIMSELF makes the SAME Bread/Teaching illustration in Matt 16:9-12

ONLY this time it is applied to the FALSE teaching of the MAGESTERIUM. Surely the commentary above will NOT choose to INJECT it's Eucharist teaching in Matt 16 because of the use of the LITERAL term "bread" and EATING.

And so EVEN in John 6 - Christ makes the LITERAL interpretation At the END of the lesson -

63"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill -
The end finally! And again, Christ was not speaking of bread but rather the "leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

"Again" you ignore the Matt 16 quote of Christ HIMSELF sayhing "How is it that YOU did NOT know that I was NOT talking about literal BREAD" vs 11.

If you continue to ignore the points made in response to your arguments - the discussion stalls.

Bill -
And again, verse 63 does not change the meaning of what Christ says in verses 53 to 58, but simply explains that the "flesh" cannot comprehend what is being said here, but only the spirit.

"Again" you ignore the point of exegesis - that you are forced to take the "context of 32-58" and ITS use of FLESH to be the determining factor of what is meant in vs 63. Immediate context is supreme in exegesis.

I keep making that point and you keep repeating yourself - that you prefer not to let the term FLESH as Christ states it in 32-58 be used exegetically to define "FLESH" in vs 63 - the very next use.

As a software programmer - I have found it useful to pay attention to the details and stick with the point at hand - stay on focus. I am sure you find that true in your profession as well.

It remains true here.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

My mammoth post-responses are now at an end.

However I think this short one summarizes the points of difference "best".

Originally posted by BobRyan:
What “details” must be faithfully ignored in John 6 to hold to the RC doctrine on eating the Flesh of Christ?


#1. Ignore the context starting with vs 25-40 Where Christ is explicitly redirecting His followers AWAY from Earthly concern about food.

#2. Ignore the "Lesson of manna" that Christ references in 31-51 which is spelled out for us by God in Deut 8:3 – avoid God’s own summary of that lesson.

#3. Ignore Christ’s own summary of the discussion in John 6:63 saying that the term “FLESH” as he has used it in his discussion so far (exegesis - Context) “is worthless" for something to literally “bite” and then get eternal life.

#4. Ignore the detail in vs 43-58 that Christ is not stating “that the truth is a FUTURE truth” but rather is already true. He is Already the bread that already came down and they must already eat His flesh. He does not say “someday in the future you must eat My flesh”.

#5. Ignore the John 6:68 detail of Peter's summary conclusion of the "lesson learned" and the fact that it does not take the too-literal view of the faithLESS disciples in 6:52,60, but rather matches perfectly with Christ’s own clear statement as to how we literally obtain life in 6:63.

#6. Ignore the Matt 16 event where Christ scolds the disciples for taking the symbol of both bread and leaven too literally. MAtt 16:6-12. And do not connect that with the fact that He says nothing against the faithFULL disciple’s understanding/view in John 6.

#7. Ignore the detail of John 6 whereby the taking of Christ literally by the faithFULL disciples and then immediately obeying – (as the RC claims they should) – the gospel would end in John 6 with their biting His literal flesh for He said “My Flesh IS real food”.

#8. Ignore the detail of John 6 making NO mention at all of a future Lord’s supper or Communion service needed for Christ’s words to “Then” become true at that future time.


What “details” in the book of John itself must be ignored to hold to the RC teaching on eating the Flesh of Christ?


#1 Ignore the detail of the book of John itself where the connection between Flesh and The Word is set explicitly as the starting context of the entire book.

#2.Ignore the detail of the book of John itself where the disciples have access to the “literally broken body of Christ” after the cross and in preparing it for burial – take no bites out of it.

#3. Ignore the same model of symbolism followed by literal as we see in John 11. “Lazarus SLEEPS, I go that I may wake him” and then plainly “Lazarus is Dead” as they took Him “too literally”.

All of these steps to ignore what is in the chapter must be combined to cut-and-paste from the chapter in snippets and still get what the RCC “needs” to find..

But - it must be noted that many will not take those steps to ignore all those details. What then? What if someone is paying attention to the details above?

How will the case be made for the Eucharist from John 6 in that situation?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[WPutnam]

For BobRyan and all other participants in this thread:

I have finished replying to all of Bob's recent replies to me. The problem is, it is way too huge to upload all at once! And I am not sure the administrators will be happy with that!

Let me cut to the chase and come down on exactly your error is in your entire presentation, Bob. It took me a while to catch on, but when I finally realized it, I knew exactly what to get you on!

If.when/when I do upload my replies, you will see me concentrate on verses 53 through 58 to indicate a refrence Christ makes to "MY flesh" and the one instance, the only instance, shown in verse 63 where Christ says "THE flesh"

It is obvious that in verses 53 to 58, Jesus is speaking of His on physical body - "MY flesh."

but in verse 63, He speaks of "THE flesh"

Notice the difference, bob?

Now, you kept harping on this business of "THE flesh is of no avail." But if that is the same "flesh" spoken of in verses 53 through 58, where Christ says "...Eat MY flesh..Drink MY blood" with such emphasis, there is no doubt of the literal meaning here.

But if the "flesh" of verses 53 through 58 are to be consumed in the manner He describes, note the great contridiction you create when you clain it is the same "flesh" in verse 63 WHICH IS OF NO AVAIL!

YOU HAVE CHRIST CONTRIDICTING HIMSELF!

How can we be commanded to "eat His flesh and drink His blood" and at the same time, His "flesh is of no avail"?

Verse 63 can only be taken one way, "THE flesh" He speaks of here is not His own flesh, but rather the "flesh," in general, of all mankind, where the senses of the flesh are limited to understanding only things of the flesh, while it takes the spirit to understand the spiritual side of this "heavenly food," Christ is giving us.

The Eucharist is a supernatual occurrence, being both a physical substance reflected by the "accidents" the senses (flesh) sees, and the actual presence of God in that the species IS GOD!

It takes the spirit to understand this most beautiful of all the Sacraments, Bob...

On that falicy, your whole thesis fails, Bob.

Now, this is what I propose: If you will give me your E-mail address and send it to:

wputnam3@bellsouth.net

I will send you as an attachment, all of the replies I have completed, and I have answered all of your recent replies. The problem is, you will see all of the "EZCoding" that may make it a bit hard to read (coding that will activate the quoting, bolding, italicizing, etc, with these commands disappearing in the final web page if I uploaded them to the forum.)

I am gong to experiment with converting them to actual web pages so that they will look as if I posted them.

That way, I will not have to upload them to the thread, having to split many of them to accomodate the limits of the spaces alloted for message in BaptistBoard, and that would be a draconian experience!

Also, for all others here in this thread who are interested in my replies, I will attach those same replies to a message to you as well if you send me your E-mail address.

It's been fun, Bob! But now, I have to conclude and go no further. I will send my replies to those interested as I have already explained, but very soon now, I will be going out of town for the 4th of July weekend, so I do have about two weeks before I do this.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima Christi -

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.

 

[BobRyan]

Bill,

Thank you for that reply. You are correct about one thing, the RCC view depends heavily on "Changing" the meaning of the term "Flesh" in John 6 between Christ's use of it in 51-56 AND then the use of the term "Flesh" in 63 - as His OWN summary of that discussion.

The RC position requires that we toss out that key "context" principle of exegesis - so it can make its case.

(And notice that John present this as "How can He give us FLESH to EAT" in vs 52 showing the view of the faithLESS disciples and that it did not need the implied "HIS Flesh" to be "understood" as HIS Flesh.

In the same way Christ's own summary "The FLESH profits Nothing, THE WORDS I speak are Spirit and are LIFE". The Flesh and THE Words spoken - are ALL OF Christ. His point is that "EATING HIS literal FLESH" is not going to get you life - but literally "Believing His WORD" will.

The Literal EATING OF FLESH is "worthless" for gaining the GOAL that is stated in John 6 - "eternal life".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BTW - I "assume" that the list of "things to ignore" I gave above - so that one "can" jump to the RCC view - was not being "considered" when you as a non-RC decided to look into John 6 and then make the leap.

I doubt that you considered the details of that list provided at all - true?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
BTW - I "assume" that the list of "things to ignore" I gave above - so that one "can" jump to the RCC view - was not being "considered" when you as a non-RC decided to look into John 6 and then make the leap.

I doubt that you considered the details of that list provided at all - true?

NO, not at all, Bob. You see, I saw right away what verse 63 was saying and to bend it to conform to your theory, Christ contridicts Himself! The other scripture references would have been non sequitur for me, as I see no relevance to them at all. And I accepted this fabulous gift from Christ back in 1953, so it is a bit hard to go back to see how my logic went in those days!

Anyway, we are through here and it has been my pleasure. And again, if you want to see theose replies, give me your E-mail address to

wputnam3@bellsouth.net

and I will be happy to attach them for your reading pleasure. Be advised that someone else has requested them and so I then them out just a few minutes ago.

Oh, and by the way, your "Things to Ignore" message is the last of the group of replies I made and are included in attached files if you want them.

Finally, I am unable to "decode them" since they are in "EZCoding," using "[...]"not the regular HTML coding that uses "<..>" for bracketing the command codes. I may have to manually go in and change them to HTML coding, or eliminate them altogether and do a Microsoft Word document on them.

ON EDIT: I was successful in converting all these files so that they will read correctly with your web browser. I will be happy to upload BOTH the "EZCoded" version as well as the converted ones, which includes corrections to spelling errors and other gramatical corrections.

ON EDIT AGAIN: Found your E-mail in your profile!Sent the converted files to you anyway!

God's infinite blessings upon you and yours, Bob! It has been my pleasure talking to you!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not
thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:
Lest the LORD see it, and it displease him, and he turn
away his wrath from him.
Proverbs 24:17-18

[ June 22, 2003, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: WPutnam ]

 

[Taufgesinnter]

Originally posted by SolaScriptura in 2003:
In a discussion of whether science can prove/disprove transubstantion, Carson said: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />We confess transsubstantiation, not transformation.

He was alleging that transformation can be proven or disproven by science but transubstantiation cannot. This, however, is not true. Notice the difference between the two.

Transubstantiation says that the substance of the bread and wine is completely replaced by the substance of Christ, only the outward visible form (species) of the bread & wine remains.

Transformation would mean that the outward visible forms (species) change to that of Christ's body and blood but that the substance of the bread and wine remains.

Transubstantiation, therefore, could be scientifically proven if it were true. It could be ascertained whether or not the substance of the bread was altered and completely replaced by the substance of flesh or not. Carson says:

The substance is changed; the form remains. This is undetectable by our senses, and so we cannot demand from science to detect that which is undetectable.

DNA can be detected, and the difference between wheat DNA and human flesh DNA can be detected. </font>[/QUOTE]That's completely ignoring that the whole idea of 'substance' is based on the pagan Greek metaphysics of Plato. As such, it cannot be supported by science. It is also extreemely foreign to Scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

And as the RCC states in "The Faith Explained" the pagan idea that bread is god or that god can be eaten - becomes "idolatry" IF it is not true - for in Catholicism the actual bread is "worshipped" and if it is not really turned into God Himself - it is "idolatry".

And as the post above shows in regard to John 6 - Christ stated IN the context of the FLESH in John 6 "The Flesh is worthless" as literal food that gives eternal life. Indeed NONE of His disciples bit Him that day - and HE does NOT indicate that He disapproved of their lack of biting.

Fascinating.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[John Gilmore]

Lord Jesus Christ, Thou hast prepared
A feast for our salvation,
It is Thy body and Thy blood;
And at Thy invitation
As weary souls, with sin opprest,
We come to Thee for needed rest,
For comfort and for pardon.

We eat this bread and drink this cup,
Thy precious Word believing
That Thy true body and Thy blood
Our lips are here receiving.
This word remains forever true,
And there is naught Thou canst not do;
For Thou, Lord, art almighty.

Though reason cannot understand,
Yet faith this truth embraces;
Thy body, Lord, is everywhere
At once in many places.
How this can be I leave to Thee,
Thy word alone sufficeth me,
I trust its truth unfailing.

Herr Jesu Christ, du hast bereit't, S. Kinner

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus Christ said "The Flesh is Worthless - My WORD IS Spirit and IS life". John 6:63

Jesus' own explanation of HIS OWN use of term "Flesh" in John 6.

And yet... to actually "read His Words" instead of the imaginations of man?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
And as the RCC states in "The Faith Explained" the pagan idea that bread is god or that god can be eaten - becomes "idolatry" IF it is not true - for in Catholicism the actual bread is "worshipped" and if it is not really turned into God Himself - it is "idolatry".

Yes, and if Christ is not really God the Son then it is idolatry to worship Him, and if God doesn't really exist then it is, what, I don't even know, to worship Him. Glad we've cleared that up!

BTW, is there a secret convention that some form of the word "pagan" shall be inserted into each and every message regarding the Catholic Church, just to keep the pot stirred?

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
And as the post above shows in regard to John 6 - Christ stated IN the context of the FLESH in John 6 "The Flesh is worthless" as literal food that gives eternal life. Indeed NONE of His disciples bit Him that day - and HE does NOT indicate that He disapproved of their lack of biting.

Gee, in John 6, prior to speaking of "the flesh," Christ speaks four times of "my flesh." Maybe He was referring to different things!

Fascinating.

You said it! I'm tempted to ask, "Do you take offense at this?" But I guess the answer is clear!