KingdomRose
New member
Excellent! That is proof that the wafers don't change to Christ's body! Hahahahaha.
Eucharist idol exposed by Celiac Disease
- Thread starter clefty
- Start date
Excellent! That is proof that the wafers don't change to Christ's body! Hahahahaha.
KingdomRose
New member
Hey, I saw a priest (monsenior) with part of a wafer in his frock pocket! I was in the hospital and my room-mate called for this monsenior to come and see her. She and her sons asked him then to say a mass, or whatever they do that calls for the wafers. He felt in his pocket and brought out half of a wafer and showed it to the communicants. The curtain was drawn and I couldn't see what was going on, but there was a little laughter and he continued with the mass. Talk about "the blessed host"! It really isn't so "blessed," apparently.
KingdomRose
New member
To jsanford's post #17: It is sad that you can't see clearly what the point was in this whole issue---that there would be no problem if the host really did turn into the flesh of Jesus. If it did, then there would be no need to worry about anyone with celiac disease or any other intolerance to wheat.
It is, to us who are observing Catholic disasters, quite silly to insist that Jesus' body is literally in the wafers, and no, no one believes it is "more than bread"! (Satanists just want to show a lot of disrespect toward the church and Christianity in general.) Logically and intellectually your position is inferior.
It is, to us who are observing Catholic disasters, quite silly to insist that Jesus' body is literally in the wafers, and no, no one believes it is "more than bread"! (Satanists just want to show a lot of disrespect toward the church and Christianity in general.) Logically and intellectually your position is inferior.
KingdomRose
New member
You're STILL going at it with jsanford???? Your point has been supported over and over, and cannot be refuted. If Jesus' flesh was literally in the wafer, there would be ZERO problems with allergies! Period. No further discussion is necessary.
jsanford108
New member
That is because the host is kept in a special container, in a priest's pocket, when giving Mass or Communion outside of a Church.
So your point is actually not an argument against the Eucharist. Your conclusion is faulty.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
jsanford108
New member
If you are bold enough to make a claim such as "logically and intellectually your position is inferior," then demonstrate it with logical proofs, evidence, and arguments.
Your point with Satanists is also false. Basal research demonstrates the necessity of Black Masses having a consecrated host. You do have one truth, in that Satanists do wish to disrespect Christianity and the Church. But they specifically target Catholicism (hence, my capitalization of "Church").
I would say it is more sad how you make a declaration that God/Christ can't do something; using natural malfunction as grounds of proof (like atheists do).
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
KingdomRose
New member
Your specious argument has been up-ended completely, and is unworthy of any further consideration.
jsanford108
New member
I expected nothing less, KingdomRose.
You enter a discussion, with arrogance, and attempt to sound superior. But, when called out on your show of intellectual superiority and capability, you retreat; Refusing to accept responsibility of proving your case, as a means of retiring with your pride intact. (Atheists do this all the time, as well, using the same fallacies you do; listed below)
Clefty has been nothing but courteous. Even if Clefty has privately disagreed with me solely because my point was devastating to his (assuming male, sorry if I am mistaken) claim, he has not resorted to trivial tactics, such as Homunculus fallacy and Argument of Intellect fallacy, as you have done.
Thus, my continued discussion with Clefty. Sure, we disagree. But at no point has he been immature and ignorant.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
You enter a discussion, with arrogance, and attempt to sound superior. But, when called out on your show of intellectual superiority and capability, you retreat; Refusing to accept responsibility of proving your case, as a means of retiring with your pride intact. (Atheists do this all the time, as well, using the same fallacies you do; listed below)
Clefty has been nothing but courteous. Even if Clefty has privately disagreed with me solely because my point was devastating to his (assuming male, sorry if I am mistaken) claim, he has not resorted to trivial tactics, such as Homunculus fallacy and Argument of Intellect fallacy, as you have done.
Thus, my continued discussion with Clefty. Sure, we disagree. But at no point has he been immature and ignorant.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
no problem...practice makes perfect
You tapping out? You have just made it worse for yourself...again verse 63 "the words I speak to you" it is obviously NOT "the bread I offer you" much less "the flesh that I offer you to eat, it is the life"...
No instead it is "they are the life" notice its plural...words...many words He speaks...not His flesh singular...it profits nothing...Spirit gives life through the words spoken...
yeah sounds like you are tapping out...
You keep with John 6 which if it was so important to John this new doctrine of bread becaming flesh and that His flesh was actually food you must note the irony that John completely omits the iconic "this is My body...this is My blood" scene but instead introduces the footwashing...
Back to John 6...He feeds +5000 bread...and knows the multitudes are chasing Him for more bread not because of the power of the Spirit verse 26 so no wonder He focuses on bread...it being near passover and all...the miracle of manna comes up...and teaching moments are everywhere...they know manna came down...not from moses but Yah Himself sent it He clarifies ...He now says "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, never thirst" you do understand this is a metaphor as all who come to Him still hunger and thirst...even die...
But so intent are the masses at getting more bread...other gospel writers have the multitude wishing to make Him king...He really has to push this teaching moment...desirous to teach not of bread but the Spirit which brings life He shakes and loses most of the class who were intent on things earthly anyhow...obviously...and they leave
But even the disciples who remain still remain troubled and offended and so He explains His "he who eats My flesh" as its the Spirit that brings life...duh
The metaphor is made most clear in verse 53 as He insists "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man...you have no life in you"...now tell me... were those who heard these words dead? No one had eaten His flesh yet...(and again John omits it entirely in His last supper account...so according to Johnthey never actually ate His flesh...of course those hearing these words had life in them...He was speaking of eternal life...the Spiritual realm...eating of the Spiritual bread...of Him spiritually...can you see its merely a spiritual lesson He wishes to teach using the temporal bread?
the least of your issues here...trust me
the hebrews could have kept the snake and merely used it as a memorial...but it was an idol...indicating they made something else of what had occurred with that bronze snake...likewise catholics make something else out of "do this in remembrance of Me"...they make it not a memorial but an on going death and cannibalizing of His flesh... keeping it a confusing mystery as to how this occurs...when in fact it is easily understood as a metaphor by even mindful and intention children..."I am the path" wouldnt prompt children to walk all over Him...
adding to the word and what it says and means is worse than adding to the ceremony...or water into the wine...
How pray tell does He cover the continuous voluntary act of consuming human flesh and drinking blood? And insisting others do like wise...do note His abhorrence to the Pharisees their false teachings and causing others to fall...
yes as if the priest has the power to take bread and wine and conjure Him...how is that not communion...and eating Him...yes that is Him literally in you when the passage includes you are in Him verse 56...literally too? that might need another thread...communion to be sure but certainly not true worship of the Spirit
the consequence of His one time and ended (yes?...I mean He did rise yes/) His Redemptive Sacrifice is continual...is why we are to do this in remembrance...not actually...
salvation is not come from the bread or the water or the circumcision but the SPIRIT...
And when He finally actually drinks of the cup with us...does He drink His own blood then too?
Peter clearly said "You have the words of eternal life...we BELIEVE and KNOW You are the Christ" not one mention of eating Him His flesh...and this is right after the lecture of the Teacher...the high point of the semester...seems like Peter missed your doctrine and agrees with my understanding. Even later during the vision Peter receives he still insists he keeps kosher and abstains from that which is unclean...that would be a false claim made by him as he ate flesh not considered food and drank blood...and unnecessary if "all foods (even His Body) were make clean"...obviously Peter is NOT into eating Christ's flesh worried whether to chew it or swallow it or if his Savior's complete body is stuck in his teeth...much less drinking His blood...the Jerusalem council clearly upheld that prohibition
I might view and comment...but for me I want to see why He would not make the alleged miracle complete enough that bread would completely turn into flesh so that celiac sufferers could still partake and not feel so alienated...
Last edited:
jsanford108
New member
I will address your challenges as soon as I can.
Consider me not tapped out, but standing firm. I am in this conversation as long as necessary and as long as it remains productive.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
It does seem that way...just trying to learn of this great mystery and miracle
Apparently if you chew Him too much and the bread loses its breadness before swallowing...it is invalidated...
Tricky stuff...
You are not supposed to eat 1 hour before receiving or too soon after...not quite sure when or what point in the biological process He is digested and expelled...
Also feel bad for the hidden crumb which is His Whole body unconsumed...for how long? I amean there He is on the floor...and as they all leave and the church goes empty...He waits...
The wine into blood was initial puzzling for me..if one would drink a lot of consecrated wine how is it they become drunk if it is blood? Does His blood intoxicate?
I am curious...
The care and attention surrounding these ceremonies indeed seems excessive...
"The proper way to wash altar cloths, is to have the one who is qualified to purify the chalices etc.(priest, deacon or acolyte)..rinse the altar cloths in water before they are washed, but the water should be collected and poured down the sacrarium...the special sink that is in all sacrisities of a church....whereby the water goes under the church....and is not desecrated.For purificators and corporals, the precaution is taken of washing them first in water and then pouring the water into the sacrarium or into the earth. The reason is that if there should be any particles of the sacred host or drops of the precious blood on either, they are not just poured into the sewer. Then the altar cloths can be washed in a washing machine."
I went ahead and viewed those links...interesting to know the current pope was part of this as many within the catholic fold view him as an antipope heretic...
You ask how these breads began to bleed...even the magicians of pharaoh were able to make their staff become snakes...and complete snakes not just the blood, heart or ventricle of a snake...
I thought the Church's teaching was the bread became the whole living body of Christ not just the blood heart or ventricle. So this is yet another incomplete miracle.
Ironically now if truly this miraculous bread was completely made into the flesh of a human heart with AB+ blood then one suffering ciliac disease could eat it without allergenic reaction.
I need to know why the whole body of Christ is causing allergic reaction with those whose biological response to glutten is negative.
The allergen is not in the appearance of bread but the substance which is claimed to have been changed into flesh.
jsanford108
New member
We are not in disagreement about verse 63 referring to words/teachings of Christ. There is no dispute there. My position is that verse 63 is not a direct reference, call back, or explanation for verses 48-58. Verses 60-71 are a different passage. Granted, I would label this as the disciples reaction. But, allow us to examine this passage. Many of the disciples said, "this is a hard saying." Then, Christ gives the words found in verse 63, "it is the spirit that gives life....the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." (Emphasis my own) In consecration, the Spirit descends upon the host, thus consecrating it, giving it life.
Notice the passage continues. Christ knew that there there those who did not believe what He had said. Further, Christ said to the twelve, "Will you also leave?" Peter said, "to whom shall we go?" He expounds saying that Christ is God. So even in this moment, Peter is still having issues understanding what Christ is saying. Why? Because just like all the others, he has heard Christ speak of consuming His very flesh and blood. But, Peter remains, because the Holy Spirit has revealed that Christ is God. Therefore, there is nothing to do but obey and believe. After all, "This is a hard saying." But to obey simply out of faith, knowing that Christ is God, was all the twelve were left with.
An excellent point. This exclusion of the Last Supper by John makes sense when you examine the Gospels historically. Each Gospel was written with a specific audience in mind. Matthew wrote for the Jews, who needed proof that Jesus was the promised Messiah; which explains the numerous references to OT prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. Mark wrote for the Christians of Rome who were suffering under Nero's persecutions. Luke wrote for the Gentiles; explaining the meaning behind numerous Hebrew-isms. John, being an Apostle, knew the content of the other Gospel accounts, thus, he wrote specifically about Christ and His Teachings.
This is slightly a false approach. First, from a historical point. The Jews followed Christ for two reasons post miraculous feeding. The first is to see more miracles. The second is they were hungry. I mean, we are talking about poor desert people. Here is a guy who can feed multitudes with scraps. Yeah, I would follow Him, too. So, to apply the feverish followings of the Jews to modern Catholics is slightly dishonest, as there are clear societal differences of the times.
That is not why they left. Remember, they left after saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" They interpreted this as cannibalism; using their limited earthly knowledge, rather than believing and trusting in Christ.
As I said before, no disagreement. The Spirit is what truly consecrates a host. Thus, giving the bread life.
Were the people who left "dead?" I would say, yes. They were dead to the teachings of Christ, simply because they did not believe. Are people "dead in sin?" This is a metaphor, no? So, here you are utilizing a Equivocation fallacy. You are changing the meaning of certain words, "dead," halfway through your point. At first, you claim it is a metaphor, then say, if it is literal are these people not alive? But you maintain the use of "life" throughout the point, for both sides. Either it is entirely a metaphor, or it is not. Interchanging meanings dependent on which position is a fallacy. (This is not an attack on you, just pointing out the error within your argument)
You keep insisting on calling the consummation of Christ, in Communion, "cannibalization." This is a false label. When God commands the Hebrews to destroy every living thing (man, woman, child, livestock, etc) is that murder? After all, God commanded it, yet we know that God can do, nor command, evil. Murder is evil. Of course, we would consider this obeying of God above morality, as everything God wills is Good. So, if Christ said "Eat my body," it cannot be cannibalism. Christ, being God, can not, nor ever will, call for evil. Christ/God exists above morality, because He is the Source of Good and morality. (I know that went really existential, but I believe it was necessary to point out)
Not if "all sin has been paid for," as many protestant doctrines declare. Examination of many Protestant doctrine which is in disagreement with Catholic doctrine is exactly this, adding to Scripture and its meanings. But that is another topic all together.
Refer to the aforementioned point about Christ's commands being absolute and absent of evil.
Are reenactments done in remembrance? For example, are Civil War reenactments actually the Civil War, or just remembrance activities?
No disagreement there. As I said, it is the Spirit which truly consecrates the hosts, through the actions of the priest. If you argue on whom the actions belong, I would point back to Moses. Did Moses separate the waters, or did God? Moses is the one who actively thrust his staff in the water.
{QUOTE]And when He finally actually drinks of the cup with us...does He drink His own blood then too?[/QUOTE] Christ did not eat, nor drink at the last supper. As evidenced by Him saying He shall not partake of the fruit of the vine until paradise.
Peter did not have to declare belief in eating the Flesh of Christ, solely because he already confessed belief in Christ. If Christ said it, it must be so, despite what makes natural sense (Such as the dead rising). Peter never says "it was only symbolic, your talk of eating you." So, to say that Peter is in agreement with your doctrine is a false conclusion. There is no clarification of symbolism on Peter's part. He solely confessed in believing Christ and that which Christ teaches and declares.
As my first response in this thread pointed out, this is placing human inefficiencies and biological inabilities above the abilities of Christ. It goes along with my hypothetical blood transfusion point. If the blood is AB+, then Christ's blood would be rejected by an O- recipient. Does this negate Christ's divinity? No. For He was fully God and fully Man. Does it ever say His body was flawless? Without blemish? Did His feet ever get dirty? Did He have to shower? If so, even one of these is the product of being fully Man.
I have my own theory on that subject. It is a long tangent, complete with evidence. But, long and probably boring to a Protestant.
So the magicians had the same power as Moses?
Is a part of Christ's body not part of the whole? Is your finger a part of your body? Your left ventricle?
It is never declared the "whole body," but "fully body." Maybe you meant "wholly." I will give you the benefit of the doubt there.
No. Because it still appears, tastes, and has the same ingredients of bread. As Christ had the same appearance and ingredients of being Man.
I think I addressed this. If not, let me know, and I will try to be more clear and concise in areas that require more explanation and expounding.
I do wish to thank you for even taking the time to review those links. That shows true dedication to the discussion.
I also want to highlight the depth of "Words." If Christ speaks, it is more real than reality. God created the universe by simply speaking it into existence. So, a declaration made by Christ is more real than anything else we can imagine. If Christ says, "My Body is real food," then it is so. Furthermore, ff Christ is "The Word," then consuming the "Word" of Christ could still be a literal consumption. Just spiritual food for thought.
sure there is...I dispute He is being literal when He uses words in this teaching regarding bread and His body...
reaction to the teaching of 48-58...and they were troubled even offended and He noticed so continued the teaching with clarification on the previous teaching...
because it went against the Torah they understood and He wouldnt alter....
flesh profits nothing means the bread receives NOT an eternal life giving Spirit...His teaching includes the manna come down from heaven which their fathers ate and are dead as are those who ate the last supper bread...though the bread came down from heaven they still died...despite His saying they would live forever...it is a symbol...you dont actually live forever because you are eating Him yes?
But again that video claimed He cleared eating human flesh and consuming blood...why is this so difficult got Peter to accept when He cleared eating flesh and drinking blood? Maybe Peter did NOT think that He cleared it? Besides cannibalism assumes the carcass is dead and Peter struggled with the idea His Savior dying...or living while being eaten upon.
Hearing His clarification that it is the Spirit not the flesh eaten has Peter saying "You have the words of eternal life". All this mind you is well before the body and blood was actually and iconically offered making it difficult to comprehend how it would play out.
Peter never the less says "You have the words of eternal life" does not say "You have the flesh that gives eternal life" nor "you have the bread which is Spirit filled and changes into your flesh"
thanks for that but again John the spiritual gospel the one specifically about Christ and His teaching (as if the others dont) omits the climax for the church of Christ and His teaching...no offering of His body and blood at the last supper...its like John spends so much time on the word becoming flesh...and His teaching on eating Him (says yours) and then just forgets...such an important church dogma and John omits it...imagine if we just had the gospel of John we wouldnt even be privy to "take eat this is My body...My blood"...
Your skipping past with a distracting paragraph of which gospel is for what does not address the reality that John omits it entirely...
I alluded to other gospel having the people wish to make Him king their agenda and desire clearly not in line with what His divine mission was...I am not comparing these jews with catholics here...His was spiritual...not of the flesh, things earthly like bread...it profit nothing...except to jews and catholics...is why you thought I was comparing perhaps?
earthly knowledge? The prohibition against blood and cannibalism was not earthly but clear from Yah's Torah...but you would have Him counter His Father?
the bread life or into flesh...which profits nothing...said He Who knows
well now you continue to switch categories...I was speaking as He was of physical literal life...
dead in sin sure but dead hearing this teaching no...they heard it and were not even offered the flesh you notice? Not even handed out bread with so much as a "here is my body"...they were looking at a living man say you must eat me...you look back and insert iconic handing out of bread but that didn't happen here...
not at all...you did trying to make men hearing this teaching men who are literally dead...they hadn't literally eaten Him yet...they were not literally dead...
slow down..."most assuredly he who believes me has eternal life..." its entirely a metaphor...they are not dead listening to Him you say they are spiritually dead
sure He can and more to your point as here you claim He is encouraging to eat Him and while He is still living...
sure He does...has Abram sacrifice his son...says make no images...they has them make some...says dont kill than has them kill...says dont commit adultery then has Hosea marry a prostitute...you need to argue that He does command what at first seems evil...but He clears eating and drinking blood...
I however dont see Him as saying to eat Him literally...as flesh doesnt profit to life eternal...so its your issue not mine...
its ok its trick when He claims He causes evil...and so it goes...consume blood and cannnibalize as you are instructed to...
yes must add purgatory and indulgences...ok less of the latter yours learned after some rebellious blowback
Catholics claim the bread turns to the whole Christ...and then get excited when bread bleeds "its a miracle"
I do...and dont see it as Him condoning cannibalism...you have an unessary abhorance to the word as apparently He covers it...calls for it...so just say YES WE CANNIBALIZE HIM...its odd at first but I am sure you will get used to it...
yes hence called reenactments and not continuations
wow really? Seriously? Yours claim they are present at a bloody/bloodless scene so which is it?
He also said He is the light...of the world...you have christ yes? So no need for electricity at night?
"Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me" (Mark 14:17-18) notice its "eating with me" not "eating me" your claims of His not eating seem far fetched...at least one "why arent you eating master" would allow an amazing teaching moment again...
did Peter dip his cup into Him to pull out living waters? No. Perhaps what Peter understood and believed of his Master is different than what you do...
plenty of witnesses testified of one dead then alive...not one testimony of bread into flesh...the unproven miracle...all others were testable and verified
and ate within an hour of receiving the host...arent you supposed to wait?
ummm no...this is making the Law of Yah null and void to the traditions of man...if the miracle is indeed the human deficiency would not matter...celiac disease is a response to gluten not flesh...and ability of Christ should be complete enough that His flesh would not trigger an allergic reaction...that it does trigger does not speak of His inability but false worship
not questioning Him...questioning you...the claim that His flawed body either AB+ or O- blood type dirty feet becomes literal changed from the bread...and completely...totally...wholly
catholics are anything but boring to one protesting
not exactly the same but from a different source which can counterfeit truth...beware results are hard to discern...idolatry most seductive...most subtle
you just dont eat a finger or leg or heart ventricle...
the allergen is not in the accidents but in the substance...which is changed
barely...address why a miracle would not be complete and still alienate one who wished to partake...
Stick to the accidents and substances...why does our biology read it still as bread...it our mouth throat and stomach cant see the bread its accidents...and its substance is now flesh without gluten
that does? Above study and use of scripture?
It is real food...just like it is real light...the true vine...a door...living water pouring...the way
jsanford108
New member
How can we even have a productive discussion on a passage of Scripture when I demonstrate my agreement, and you just refute it? This is a key issue in debates. When opponents believe that they know more about the beliefs of both sides than the parties present. If I say that I believe something or agree with some point, then how can you refute it, as you do not know outside of what I confess to believe?
There is no proof of this analysis in Scripture. You say that is the cause, but there is no evidence or clarifications that make this declaration.
This is what I am describing when I mention the fallacy of Equivocation. You know that eternal life does not mean immortal life. Yet here, you are altering the definitions in order to posit your claim. I have never said that people who partake of the Eucharist are immortal; but here, you assert that is my position.
However, by this Equivocation, I admit I finally am clear on your position. You believe that, since the phrase "eternal life" is not a literal immortality, then likewise "My Flesh" must not be a literal flesh. Yet that is the issue within your claim: "Eternal life" is not synonymous with "immortal life." Thus, the false equivalency.
Why do you keep using this video as a proof? I have said that the video is inaccurate, as the claims made therein are not true, and bear no evidence to support the claims. This goes back to my first point in this response. How can we progress in discussion when I say "this is false," demonstrating why, yet you say, "this is the truth of your beliefs." Not to be rude, but it is akin to the 3rd grader who says "No, you're wrong, that is a lion" despite being shown a picture of an elephant. At some point, simply defending a video because it supports a point, despite evidence to the contrary, becomes a preference to ignorance.
So, stop using that video as a point. It is a false claim, made by a Catholic who is ignorant on the matter.
Kind of like how Christ said, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up."
That goes to my point on clarification. If we posit your position into Scripture, Christ saying the flesh is useless, it would be like saying "He who eats my flesh, which is useless, has eternal life. He who does not eat my flesh, which is useless, has no life with me." Your position renders the whole passage null, because it makes the declaration have no weight or significance.
Let us consider my quote from 1 Corinthians 11:29. How can improper eating and drinking of a symbol, be worthy of damnation? If we examine the verses preceding verse 29, we are given examples of circumstances which should be addressed before taking Communion. If it is merely a symbol, why do such trivial, and fixable, matters affect the eternal security of a person? How do such matters merit damnation, if one is merely taking part in a symbolic event? Paul here is giving extreme weight to communion, don't you think, if it is "understood" to be a mere symbol.
That is most likely because John knew that the synoptic gospels already had three accounts of the Last Supper. But the others did not have the depth of teachings and clarifications that his had.
Pretty much.
This goes back to my point that Christ exists above and outside of morality. If Christ says to do something, or that something is good, then it must be so. Same as God. So, the killing of every man, woman, and child is good, because God deemed it so. Likewise, Christ saying it is good to eat His Flesh, is good because He deemed it so. It isn't a contradiction; it is an exception.
So, you think that Christ when He says "eternal life" means physical immortality?
Could you clarify what you meant on this?
If your claim is that God commands evil, then we are failing to agree on the attributes of God. This would mean that any discussion we have will lack productivity, for we do not agree on God, Himself. If God is contradictory, then He cannot be God. So, if you propose that God can command us to commit evil acts, despite a "change of mind," then we do not agree on God.
My position is that whatever God/Christ declares, no matter if it is before, during or post, present, then it is wholly Good and True. So, Christ can say, "Eat My Body," before the Resurrection, because He is not limited by the natural law. Because everything He declares and commands is eternally True.
There are still indulgences. The rebellion was against the corrupt act of having people pay for indulgences and sacraments. An issue which needed to be addressed. So, that point goes to you.
False. It is "wholly" Christ, but not "whole" Christ. A piece of flesh is "wholly," but not "whole." This is basic biology, terminology, and vocabulary.
I do have an abhorance to calling it "cannibalism," as it is a false application. Just as you wouldn't say that God "murdered" Christ. This goes back to my point about the attributes of Christ/God, and existing above morality.
It is the "continuous remembrance of Christ's Sacrifice." That does not mean, as many twist it, or declare it implies, "still happening."
Also, did you know that "Remembrance" includes "active participation," by definition?
No. You can eat the moment you leave Mass.
This is Equivocation again. "Light of the world" does not mean physical light. If you insist that this must be metaphorical, then is there electricity in heaven?
I addressed this when I said that Christ can exists outside and above natural law. Can Christ not make something change in substance? After all, He changed water into wine. Can He not change wine into His Blood, yet allow it to still retain the appearance, taste, and biological properties of wine? If not, then He is not God.
I have provided proof of the Eucharist being transformed. It was testable. Verified. And witnessed. It went against the natural law.
You are taking the position of the Pharisees. Despite knowing and seeing all the prophecies being fulfilled in one person, they refused to believe He was the Christ. Despite the miracles. Despite raising Himself from death. They still refused to believe, despite the physical evidence, witness testimonies, etc.
This is not making the Law of God void to man-made traditions. This is a straw man argument. Once again, you are placing the existence of natural limits as proofs against miracles. If your position is correct, then Christ could not have risen from the dead. Because what is dead cannot come back to life. It is biologically impossible.
I agree. There are numerous instances of this being true. Examples actually abound of this. That is why instances of the Eucharist bleeding are taken so seriously. That is why instances of apparitions are taken skeptically. It takes years and substantial proof to ever declare one "Divine."
Is this you arguing again on what Catholics believe, despite the opposite being conveyed?
The allergen is not the fault of the host, but of the recipient. Mutagens are what cause such inefficiencies. This can get really biological. But, if you wish to go on this tangent, you picked a good source. (I have a Masters in Biology, Minor in Chemistry, Concentration in medical and biochemistry, and am one class away from a minor concentration on Theology)
Study of Scripture is most important. But, a person truly trying to grow in knowledge will also search and study materials outside of Scripture, as means of deepening faith. Such materials, in my experience, also solidify faith, while providing excellent proofs for when challenged. Hence, my praise of your actual reading of suggested links.
(I always check out links provided by opponents in discussions, as it gives insight to their views, methods of deduction, etc. Learning is learning; and educating oneself on opposition's views/methods/etc gives extra knowledge on the discussion)
How can a miracle be complete, yet a person being unable to partake fully? Biological inefficiencies, present in individuals, inhibit particular aspects. That is why there are alternate methods, known as exceptions, made for such individuals. If one cannot receive the host, due to gluten allergies, then wine is available, containing the same divinity of the same Christ.
No person has ever been drunk from receiving the wine. One receives a "sip"; not a "gulp" or "swallow." Such small amounts are impossible to make anyone intoxicated. The wine itself contains minimal alcohol. If a person is so addicted that such a small amount is hazardous to their addictions, and they have gluten allergies, then they are clearly not in a state of care, for most liquors contains gluten.
Our biological systems reads the host as bread due to the natural composition being bread. Our natural systems can only detect natural elements. Thus, the species in question remain natural in detection and composition. The bread is still bread in nature, but is divinely the Body, Blood, and Divinity of Christ. It is the Divine Presence within that is the cause of the miracle. At times, as evidenced by the "Eucharistic Miracles," the natural composition can also change, defying natural law. Such occurrences are rare. Even more rare is the occurrence of a person being dead three days, coming to life, then ascending whole and wholly to heaven. Such occurrences defy natural law. Hence, the application of the term, supernatural. Supernatural, by definition, meaning "beyond the natural."
This is how the Eucharist appears, tastes, and is digested, as bread. Due to the physical nature being a bread composition. It is the Divine Nature which is beneficial to the soul.
because verse 63 is our dispute...you claim flesh means seeing things from a eyes of the flesh unable to see the actual miracle...I claim flesh means by actually eating Him especially at this point in the narrative where He did not offer His body even as bread but just claimed it was food and they were oblivious to the understanding He was actually going to die and on Passover as our substitute...all this at this context at this time in John 6 was not Him advocating at that moment they walk up and gnaw on His flesh...that would profit nothing...it is NOT even about not seeing things spiritual of the flesh
verse 60-61 is clear His asking "Does this offend you?" refers to the teaching from before
You didnt say it HE did...He said whoever eats this bread that comes down will live forever...but if its true they ate His flesh and still died...obviously He wasn't literal about eating literal bread and living forever...or eating His flesh called bread and living forever...it was all symbolic they died eating His flesh because He was being symbolic...they died just as those eating the other bread from heaven that is manna did...
is it an elephant? That is the discussed here...eating flesh and drinking blood was forbidden by Yah's Law implying His son somehow cleared it to have them eat Him and drink His blood is the elephant...but it is not an elephant because...1) His Son would never counter the will of the Father 2) never taught eat literally my flesh but consume spiritually the bread which the manna was a foreshadowed...
That video is unique as the belief the prohibition to ingest human flesh and drink blood was lifted...it is usually avoided.
Again put it back into the context those that followed Him did not see Him as a passover lamb or that He was going to be killed on passover...so they were having to consider eating Him while living flesh...or somehow kill Him first...He was not offering they eat Him then and there...
yes kinda...its not flesh of the temple that profits...its temporal stones but the Spirit
again eating human flesh though prohibited is not however useless...it is filling and has nutritional value...I am saying He is clarifying that the act of eating His flesh is useless to salvation/eternal life as He must be sacrificed as a type of the passover lamb not just randomly eaten...they idea those that left Him with was that eating Him would bring eternal life...that means in that context flesh is useless...it is the Spirit the words He speaks which Peter affirms...NOT saying "you have the flesh" as it was "you have the Words"
it is not bringing judgement on the groom if he shows up late, or not dressed, or drunk or with another woman? Paul includes the iconic "this do as often as you drink it" so of course the church had to limit it to one sip per day...that is to say as often as you drink could be everyday or any time you drink the fruit of the cup we are to remember...not just on Sunday mornings
Paul writes no list of necessary method or tools/items or prayers or priests...just simply "as often as you drink it"...
(I have come to believe the frequency of THIS REMEMBRANCE was once a year as it was the night before Passover when this bread and wine where symbolically used to remember Him His sacrifice not to ingest Him as comfort food)
Likely? Hardly... John is the spiritual gospel and thus this mystery of the change of substance from literal bread to actual flesh should be front and center...just as the word became flesh...
This is up there with His death and resurrection which is covered by all four...and that being just only accounts of what happened to Him not His mission, teaching, or what He gave to us...and for us to do. This alleged miracle of bread into flesh is teaching without application...for yours it is the very foundation of your mysterious initiations...and to think John the spiritual gospel omitted it.
well sadly jews and catholics are similar as they do rely on icons relics and other idolatries falsifying true worship making of it something it is not...bronze snakes no longer heal the Spirit does...and bread remains bread but the Spirit gives life
right...so don't be so quick to dismiss the brave video crusader who claims human flesh and blood are cleared to consume...you believe He said it so its good
ummm yes of course...the Spirit provides eternal life indeed...not bread or eating His body...
He said "He who comes to me will never hunger" that is understood as to hunger for spiritual food yes or do you think now He is literal as well...
you said you thought the men who left at the saying were dead...clarifying sprititually...but they were not literally dead despite not having literally pounced on Him and feeding on His flesh
He said Himself He does and that is not the point. The point is you insist He wishes we eat human flesh and drink His human blood. And since He wills it it then becomes good.
so don't balk at hearing you are cannibals or come up with weak excuses like He made human flesh clean meat food.
is why I still protest man made traditions...in eating bread and drinking the fruit of the wine I remember His sacrifice His literal blood shedding was enough...in Him I am entirely spared the curse of the law...no need of indulgences reprieve from yet another man made construct...hell...yet another misapplication of what is symbol and literal...not ironic
this is bigger than for points
church teaching is clear each piece is the whole body of christ everything that makes christ christ is now substance which appears as bread.
He didnt murder, He let His Son be murdered is most appropriate and considered a sacrifice.
this is not a normal remembrance... it is an act of participation by the fact that it continues...
I don know and know that the act is over done complete...we have moved on...hence I remember and do not assist in the MASSacre
I have read you are not to eat from sat night midnight until receiving the host and not to eat for at least an hour...to derive the full benefit of having Him in your belly and intestines and beyond I imagine...
no probably no neon lights up there...as He is the Light...literally...but down here with us it was symbolic and they still needed torches to locate Him in the garden
sure He can but I am claiming He does not...relying on the Spirit to be present not Him actually in the flesh...what I aim to say is if He indeed was miraculously present its odd that the miracle cannot be complete enough that celiac sufferers can eat Him to as there is absolutely now gluten remaining...
and if completely flesh I imagine it would then finally be edible to one allergic to gluten...your miracles BTW are incomplete as they only transformed into peices of flesh not the whole body and divinity of Christ...so it is indeed more like pharoah's magicians able to change sticks to snakes
no I am taking the position of Peter who stated it was the words teachings and Spirit of Him...Peter did not say it was the eating His flesh...
Of course He can raise from the dead...just like He could change bread into flesh...that is not the issue...the issue is that you claim the dead is raised and well the carcass just continues to lie there..."no no you only see it as laying there...it really is alive" or as in this case yours claim the bread is flesh and it still causes allergic reaction because it is not flesh but remains bread...maybe He didnt make the miracle complete enough...or at all
the bread bleeding so the flesh retains the blood...not kosher...lol...again the flesh is peicemeal and is not the complete body...incomplete miracle indeed..
I have read it myself...you eat the whole body not the foot or finger...
still waiting...biology and chemistry don't care about appearances or that it looks like bread...
come let us reason...I still dont think this pomp and ceremony of mystery by the duly initiated is what it pertains to be...
drunk from blood even less likely...
no its substance has been completely changed into the body
demonstrating the original intent that the bread actually turns into flesh...a miracle because it is so rare...but supposedly this occurs millions of times every Sunday or whenever else the church sanctions its performance...can't celebrate without the proper procedure yes? Must be valid yada yada yada...
indeed...and at anytime time it is not complete it is well not a miracle...imagine being raised in accidents only...
substance has been transformed into flesh...
sadly not available to one suffering cileac disease...
Patrick Cronin
New member
If you understood the meaning of 'transubstantiation' you would know that the physical effects of eating bread, whether it is consecrated or not, are exactly the same. The fact that that some of the human race have the disability of coeliac disease does not call into question the fact that God created wheat. In any case Catholics do not have to "do without" the real presence because He is fully present in the consecrated wine.
It is not the dead Jesus that is received in Catholic Holy Communion, it is the living Jesus. "I am the LIVING bread that has come down from heaven"....".He that eats ME the same also will live by me"(John 6:51)and (John 6:57).
It is not the dead Jesus that is received in Catholic Holy Communion, it is the living Jesus. "I am the LIVING bread that has come down from heaven"....".He that eats ME the same also will live by me"(John 6:51)and (John 6:57).