Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
All I can say is that you can never accuse Catholics of being confusing ever again!!!
I think the Catholic faith is well symbolized by "in for a penny, in for a pound," while the non-Catholic faith symbology seems to be "in for a penny, but that's bloody well all."
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.
And we do not believe this. Nor do we believe that there is both a change of substance and form (obviously).
No, because if the DNA were to our senses different, then it would not look the same. If the form of the DNA changes, then the form of the substance also would change (if you changed my DNA, I would not longer be "Grant" but something else). So while the DNA DOES change, it changes in substance but not form, and is thus not detectable. DNA that looks like the DNA of wheat will be detected as wheat, even though it is not substantially wheat.
Do not shove words in our mouth. Who said it was necessary for salvation to understand all the lingo? No one. Not me. Not another Catholic. Not the Catholic Church. All we have to have is faith that the bread and wine are now the Body and Blood of Christ. The lingo is there because a lot of us (like you and I on this board) like to dig deeper into theological understandings of our faith, which is fine and dandy, but not neccessary.
Your jest is not well received. No one said we are to take Jesus literally all the time. You force that into the discussion, and it too is not well received. I do not believe that Jesus spoke always literally, and I do not believe that He never spoke literally. It is a combination of the two. You chose to reject this one. Your perogative. That doesn't somehow mean you have a greater understanding, or that the ancient Catholic belief is wrong.
When Jesus comes again, are you going to run a DNA test on Him and see if He is God? Oh ye of little faith in the Word of God. You cannot prove with science that Jesus is God; you accept it wholly on faith. So do not throw me the above garbage.
What a comedian. You are the one who insists science is the judge of it, NOT US. Science does not hender my faith. And science will never prove anything that will run contrary to my faith, because science is subserviant to faith. And the Word of God does prove the Real Presence, without using the later word of "transubstantiation," just like the Word of God proves that He is Triune, a word later derived.
Rather, the anti-Catholic must lie about Catholic teaching in order to push his own teachings. You have shown just that in this thread.
That's what those who rejected Jesus said about Him. "Oh him? He's not God! He's the son of the carpenter! Crucify Him! He blasphemes, claiming to be God, when He is S
BVIOUSLY a man!" Jesus, the man, was wholly God, and yet "God won't let you see it."
The offer is on the table, but is being refused by the Catholic Church.
Hmmm. You mean, can I give you an example where some denomination will "claim" that no physical properties - nothing detectable - is "changed" from vegetable-plant substance (though not detectable as a plant in "substance" to start with since substance is not detectable) - being "changed" (in a way where no change is seen at all - on any leve whatsoever) to "flesh"
By making up this idea of "substance - something that can not be detected in any form" - CHANGING (and no way to detect that anything HAS changed other than the claims of the RCC) THEN the ONLY deciding factor is - "what is the RCC claiming now". So any claim that it makes regarding the non-change happening "again" in another "non-detectable way" - is just as valid and verifiable as any other claim in that regard.
The supposed "miracle" that "makes no difference" and has no "attributes" - that "is not detectable" - is no miracle at all.
Is this really called for? Have you receieved a direct revelation from God or something?
While I do not necessarily agree with the RCC's teaching on the Eucharist, I understand what Grant has summarized. I can't argue the logic with the definitions being used. I don't agree with it, but I understand what they're teaching. It can't be proven by science. Just accept, guys. It is a different interpretation that what Protestants hold to. Why put them to the test with modern science?
While I don't take these statements literally we are on some level sheep and He is the door. Catholics are not teaching that every aspect of the bread is Christ. But they are saying that on some level that it is the Body of Christ. I agree with what I believe Grant said, that some of the things we decide to take literally and others not. Protestants do not take, "This is my body....this is my blood...." literally. But we do take it literal when Christ said "I am the way and the truth and the life." Ease up a bit, guys. I don't see it as cannibalism that they are teaching.
This form of argument is known as "a tautaulogy" it "says nothing" - it conveys no meaning by saying "the substance of bread is the substance you can't detect because substance is the substance of something" says nothing.
I would be extremely leary of someone if they told me that a physical item had it's substance completely altered, but couldn't prove it by science. "Yeah, the substance has changed but it still looks and tastes the same!" That's the way Satan does things, not God!
On the mount of transfiguration, Peter, James, and John saw His glory shine through His flesh. His Godhood was visible and observable and therefore scientifically proven.
There are no specific scientific tests using test equipment or test procedures that prove the Jesus is God. However, we have reasonably reliable biological evidence that children are the product of a mother and father, in every case except that of Jesus.
You are missing the point. The ice/water example was that of TRANSFORMATION. The substance remains the same, but the form changes. It's still H20 in both examples. In the Eucharist, the OPPOSITE happens: the substance changes, while the form remains exactly the same.
So why did God come in the form of a man? How convincing was that? Last I checked, it required faith.
Good job. That's the best example I've seen yet (since others seemed to have ignored the challenge. Now I would point you to read up on Eucharistic miracles.
