GraceSaves
New Member
I was not aware that God was limited by the laws of science. Can you show me where that is in the Bible?
God bless,
Grant
God bless,
Grant
-
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!
Science vs Transubstantiation
- Thread starter SolaScriptura in 2003
- Start date
trying2understand
New Member
Please show me where the Church teaches that there is a change in PHYSICAL SUBSTANCE.
It's poor debate to change another persons words in order to disprove his position.
Y
Yelsew
Guest
And as Jesus said: "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." John 20:29
God Bless </font>[/QUOTE]This is regarding the resurrected body of the Christ, and not the incarnated body of Christ. Same body, different circumstance. However, the vast majority of Jews did not believe in that incarnated body of Jesus, the babe, any more than they believed in the resurrected Body of the Christ.
SolaScriptura in 2003
New Member
THANK YOU - FINALLY! Everyone opposed to transubstantiation in this thread has been saying "PHYSICAL SUBSTANCE" over and over and you have said NOTHING ABOUT IT. If we're incorrect, I'm glad you finally decided to set us straight - it's about time! So, if the RCC doesn't teach that the PHYSICAL SUBSTANCE changed, what does it say changes? There's even a priest on here now, and HE didn't try to correct the problem! Perhaps there isn't one? Perhaps you're just trying to confuse us.
Pardon me while I play advocatus diaboli.
If the Bible said that the bread and wine literally became the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, but scientific analysis showed it to remain bread and wine, would you believe it to be the literal flesh and blood of Christ?
I'm not saying it is or isn't, and I'm not making an arguement either way. It's an if...then question, so please limit your enswers to yes or no.
The reason I ask is because those on this thread who are anti-transub are trying to use science to prove the pro-transubs wrong, yet if the bible was difinitive about it, they'd toss science out the window.
If the Bible said that the bread and wine literally became the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, but scientific analysis showed it to remain bread and wine, would you believe it to be the literal flesh and blood of Christ?
I'm not saying it is or isn't, and I'm not making an arguement either way. It's an if...then question, so please limit your enswers to yes or no.
The reason I ask is because those on this thread who are anti-transub are trying to use science to prove the pro-transubs wrong, yet if the bible was difinitive about it, they'd toss science out the window.
neal4christ
New Member
I'm not and I am 'anti-transub'!
Neal
[ June 12, 2003, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]
Y
Yelsew
Guest
I'll answer your question if you'll answer mine. Does the bible, when it speaks on an issue, substantiate or refute science that speaks of the same issue? A yes or no answer is appropriate.
Y
Yelsew
Guest
Yelsew posted early on,
The Gap between Truth and myth is as wide if not wider than before. So let me again pose this statement:
Between the material realm in which there is ample proof that the transubstantiation theory of Catholicism is a myth, and the Spiritual realm in which Jesus taught about himself, the truth abounds that transubstantiation is real, but the symbols of Jesus body and blood remain merely symbols, and do not transubstantiate any where but in the human spirit.
I would also remind you that Jesus taught that spirit does not consume natural food. Jesus does not contradict Himself, therefore, what is consumed in the natural realm remains natural food. What is consumed by the spirit is spiritual food, and the two foods are not the same food, and neither transubstantiates into the other.
Grant said to that,
Mike S replied to Grant,
Yelsew responded
To which a couple responded, "the Catholics have no act to clean up", which certainly does not seem to be the case 8 pages of posts later.
The Gap between Truth and myth is as wide if not wider than before. So let me again pose this statement:
Between the material realm in which there is ample proof that the transubstantiation theory of Catholicism is a myth, and the Spiritual realm in which Jesus taught about himself, the truth abounds that transubstantiation is real, but the symbols of Jesus body and blood remain merely symbols, and do not transubstantiate any where but in the human spirit.
I would also remind you that Jesus taught that spirit does not consume natural food. Jesus does not contradict Himself, therefore, what is consumed in the natural realm remains natural food. What is consumed by the spirit is spiritual food, and the two foods are not the same food, and neither transubstantiates into the other.
I'll answer your question if you'll answer mine. Does the bible, when it speaks on an issue, substantiate or refute science that speaks of the same issue? A yes or no answer is appropriate. </font>[/QUOTE]When science and Scripture both speak on an issue they must agree. If they don't agree either science is wrong or Scripture is being misinterpreted. However, science cannot speak on all issues that Scripture speaks on.
Hebrews 12:29-- for our God is a consuming fire.
James 4:8-- Draw near to God and He will draw near to you.
So we are to draw near to a consuming fire, since we are to draw near to God and that's what God is?
Or is "is" really is? </font>[/QUOTE]I thought we all understood the "is" referred to "this is my body...this is my blood." My bad!
Since Christ is the Lamb of God, prefigured by the passover lambs, perhaps the Jews were never really supposed to eat the flesh of the passover lambs. Those lambs were real in the flesh, just as Christ was real in the flesh, and those lambs were really sacrificed just as Christ was really sacrificed, but while the passover lambs were really eaten, apparently Christ pulls a 2-out-of-3 on us and suddenly gets strictly symbolic at this point.
So according to Mike, either everything is symbolic or everything is literal. What does that do for the time when Jesus fed the 5000. Did the bread that they ate become the actual body of Christ? After all Jesus did say "I am the bread of life." So they were eating him, were they not? Why not use the same logic there? Be consistent.Originally posted by MikeS:
I thought we all understood the "is" referred to "this is my body...this is my blood." My bad!
Since Christ is the Lamb of God, prefigured by the passover lambs, perhaps the Jews were never really supposed to eat the flesh of the passover lambs. Those lambs were real in the flesh, just as Christ was real in the flesh, and those lambs were really sacrificed just as Christ was really sacrificed, but while the passover lambs were really eaten, apparently Christ pulls a 2-out-of-3 on us and suddenly gets strictly symbolic at this point.
DHK
So according to Mike, either everything is symbolic or everything is literal. </font>[/QUOTE]Wow, did I say that!?Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeS:
I thought we all understood the "is" referred to "this is my body...this is my blood." My bad!
Since Christ is the Lamb of God, prefigured by the passover lambs, perhaps the Jews were never really supposed to eat the flesh of the passover lambs. Those lambs were real in the flesh, just as Christ was real in the flesh, and those lambs were really sacrificed just as Christ was really sacrificed, but while the passover lambs were really eaten, apparently Christ pulls a 2-out-of-3 on us and suddenly gets strictly symbolic at this point.
No, I was just observing how the beautiful OT prefiguration of the Lamb of God falls over like a 2-legged stool when you don't believe in the Real Presence.
"Symbolic at this point" is not a bad way of putting it. "The passover lambs were really eaten," as you say. So why did they not really eat Jesus himself? Why didn't they cut him apart and roast his arms and legs and feast on his ribs? If He was really to be eaten as the lambs, they would have done that. Instead they did something else. They did not really roast him and eat him.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
No need to speculate. AS IT TURNS OUT - the Bible DOES speak to "SUBSTANCE" and "MATTER". It says the world was created in one week and that life on planet earth is only 6000 years old and that there was a world wide flood only 4500 years ago.
So - should we "expect to find PHYSICAL EVIDENCE" of that fact? Yes! By all means. And sure enough - WE DO!
When Christ Declared that the one with Leprosy was "healed" was there any "physical detectible evidence"? You bet!
When Christ said to the paralytic - "Be healed" - was there any "physical evidence" - You Bet!
When Christ said to the tree "Cursed are you and from now on no one will eat of your fruit" was there any "PHYSICAL EVIDENCE"? You BET!
The "I change matter and claim it changes into something else - but there is no evidence that I am telling the truth" concept of Catholicism - is not found in all of scripture.
In Christ,
Bob
Paul doesn’t say , "Jesus did everything on the cross, just have "faith alone"." No, they celebrated the feast, the breaking of the bread...the Eucharist....the cup of blessing which they bless.
"Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.
Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar?" 1 Corinthians 10:16-18
Jesus Christ taught that He is the Bread of Life, and later at the Passover Meal He showed them the bread consecrated with the words of Jesus , "This is my Body", is also the same Bread of Life...the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. This is how he fulfills His promise to be with us always. It is all very consistent.
God Bless
[ June 12, 2003, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: Kathryn ]
"Symbolic at this point" is not a bad way of putting it. "The passover lambs were really eaten," as you say. So why did they not really eat Jesus himself? Why didn't they cut him apart and roast his arms and legs and feast on his ribs? If He was really to be eaten as the lambs, they would have done that. Instead they did something else. They did not really roast him and eat him. </font>[/QUOTE]But they did, in the form that Christ instituted! Just as God told the Israelites how to eat the flesh of the passover lamb, Christ told us how to eat the flesh of the Lamb of God.
John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
--John records that Jesus did everything on the cross. Jesus Himself cried out: “It is finished.” He did accomplish everything on the cross. It is ashame that you don’t accept by faith the record of God’s Word that He did.
2Cor.5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
--God has reconciled us to Him by Jesus Christ. The work of Christ has been accomplished. It is finished. If one accepts His redemptive work by faith, he receives the gift of eternal life, otherwise the sacrifice of Christ is in vain.
Eph.2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Gl.3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
DHK