glassjester
Well-known member
Not all claims about physical reality are scientifically verifiable.
Example: God created physical reality.
ECT Modern Science and Trent
- Thread starter themuzicman
- Start date
Not all claims about physical reality are scientifically verifiable.
Example: God created physical reality.
themuzicman
Well-known member
This is a claim that includes claims about God, which are inherently unverifiable.
OTOH, claiming that a thing is human flesh is easily verifiable. In fact, it's been tested, and found to be false.
glassjester
Well-known member
And transubstantiation is not a claim involving God?
Do you think God could not change a substance?
Is that a miracle too great for God?
themuzicman
Well-known member
Sure, God could change a substance. But in accordance with how He created the universe, in order for it to be the actual body of Christ, it would need human cells, including human DNA.
Let me ask you this:
Is the body of Christ physical, spiritual, or metaphysical?
glassjester
Well-known member
Is God capable of suspending or intervening in the natural order of His universe?
I believe that has happened. I believe that is what we would call a miracle.
Jesus multiplied the loaves. That was not in accordance with anything natural. It was supernatural. It was in accordance with His will.
All things are metaphysical. To say something exists metaphysically is simply to say it exists.
So... I'd go with choice A and choice C.
On a related note - thank you for talking with me about this. I appreciate it.
themuzicman
Well-known member
Only if God changed the nature of Christ's body, in which case it wouldn't be Christ's literal body, anymore.
Congratulations, you've come over to the protestant side (or at least the Easter Orthodox side, which appeals to mystery.)
Ah, but the bread was still bread.
But all things are physical, too. So, you really should be choosing A and B, and, thus, Trent is still in error.
glassjester
Well-known member
Right. And if He changed the nature of the bread, it wouldn't be bread anymore.
So is God capable of changing a substance, without changing the properties of the original substance? Or is He not able to?
Except for that one time.
John 6:50-51
"But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
Not all things that exist, exist in a physical way.
And anything that exists, exists by God's will.
All things, but God, exist contingently - rather than necessarily.
Only God exists, necessarily.
Existence is part of His nature.
It is not within the nature of a human being, or a stone, or a drop of water, to necessarily exist - meaning it is possible for any one of those things to not exist.
Their existence is contingent upon God's will.
As are their properties.
Fire burns things. This is one of its properties. But fire will lose this property, if God so wills it. (Daniel 3:25)
A solid piece of iron does not float. Bouyancy is not one of its properties. But the substance of iron bares the property of bouyancy, if God so wills it. (2 Kings 6:5-6)
Likewise, blood does not bare the properties of wine, nor flesh the properties of bread. But if God wills it to be so, it is so.
And He does will it to be so. John 6:55
themuzicman
Well-known member
Given the nature of creation, no. This falls into the same category as asking whether God can make a rock large enough that He cannot lift it, or know the color of the number 9. The assertion is logically absurd.
The substance of a thing is found it its properties, in its molecular makeup. If God changed the molecular makeup, it would become something else.
Jesus didn't start pulling pieces of flesh from his body and giving it to them right then, did he?
Or even given them any bread?
You're assuming (blindly) that "This bread is my flesh" is being spoken in a literal way, and assuming (blindly) that this happens via the Eucharist. Eucharist isn't mentioned anywhere in John 6. Nowhere do John or Jesus tie this speech to Eucharist.
Excellent. Then if the bread does not become the body of Christ in a physical way, then it isn't Christ's body.
Actually, fire is the result of certain kinds of combustion. The properties of fire do not include burning things. Burning is a chemical process to which fire may contribute heat.
You see, modern science has shown that previous views of the world (such as all things comprising earth, wind, fire, and water) to be inaccurate.
Buoyancy isn't a property. Buoyancy tells us about the density of a solid object when immersed in a liquid object, and subjected to gravity. It is a comparative term, not a term of property. If we found a liquid that was more dense than iron, iron would float on it.
Again, modern science has displaced much of ancient science in this respect.
First, your examples fail the idea of "property." Nowhere in Scripture does the text tell us that the "properties" of anything changed. The miracles you cite are more easily explained by God's intervention (shielding in the fire, raising the ax head to the surface), than claiming that God decided to alter the nature of the universe.
Second, your examples are specific miracles that the bible identifies as miracles. Nowhere is Eucharist named as a miracle each time it occurs.
Third, in order to bear the properties of blood, it must display those properties. In order to bear the properties of flesh, it must display those properties. Flesh is not flesh without DNA. If it does not have DNA, it isn't flesh. The bread does not have DNA, thus it is not flesh.
Again, you're making assumptions from the text that aren't supported in it.
glassjester
Well-known member
I've brought this same objection up to myself (in thought) several times throughout this discussion.
Is transubstantiation really just a square circle? (ie, impossible, by definition)
I don't think it falls into that category.
This is what I was thinking about when I brought up contingency and necessity in my previous post.
A circle, by definition, cannot have the property of four-sidedness.
God, by definition, cannot have the property of unable to lift a rock.
What are the properties of Christ's risen body, by definition?
Do we even know? Can we even know?
We know it has different properties than our bodies. (ie, He can walk through walls)
We know it has different properties than His corpse. (ie, His risen body lives)
This is a question worth repeating:
What are the properties, by definition, of Christ's risen body?
Does the human body normally combust under the conditions described in Daniel 3?
Agreed.
But the iron floated in water.
So did God temporarily change the properties of the iron, or the water?
Shielded by what?
Lifted to the surface by what?
I am eager to hear your explanation of Christ's claim that His body "is real food."
Last edited:
themuzicman
Well-known member
Yes. It is the same flesh that we live in. Christ's risen body had the wounds of his crucifixion still on him. It has the same characteristics. Human cells with DNA.
There is no evidence that walking through walls is a property of Christ's risen body. It is a property of being divine and being able to do miracles. Indeed, he was resurrected in the same body he died in, as we can see from the evidence he presented to Thomas.
Look at Phillip. He was taken from one place to another by the Holy Spirit. That isn't a property of Phillip's body.
The same as ours, as Christ demonstrated to Thomas.
Again, you're assuming that there was a change to their bodies, which is not indicated in the text.
Not indicated in the text.
God himself? You do believe that God is able to act, right?
Go back to verses 27-29. Jesus commands the Jews not to work for food that perishes, but to work for food that endures to eternal life, and he tells the Jews that the work they need to do is to believe.
So, Jesus' statement, in context, is that the work of eating Christ's flesh means placing their faith in Him. Jesus made this clear in verses 27-29, and then speaks to them in ways the Jews aren't able to understand. That's why verse 63 says that the ability to believe wasn't granted to them.
glassjester
Well-known member
Yes, the same body. I agree. But the resurrected body has been changed. And it has properties which we do not and cannot possibly know, in anywhere near an exhaustive sense.
To presume to know what the resurrected body is like, is, as Paul says, foolish. (1 Corinthians 15:35-36)
"But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies."
But we do know that the resurrected body, while sharing many similar properties to the old body, has different properties as well. And we do not know what they are. (1 Corinthians 15:42-44)
"So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body."
To claim that Christ's body cannot exhibit Property X, under any circumstances, is to say:
1. I possess an exhaustive list of all the properties exhibited by the Body of Christ, and...
2. Property X is not an item on this exhaustive list, and (perhaphs most presumptiously)...
3. God cannot, even by His divine will and omnipotence, allow the Body of Christ to exhibit any properties not contained in this exhaustive list, which I alone possess.
Certainly. And I believe He can, at will, alter, add to, and subtract from the properties of all things. He is, after all, the author of all matter and forces in the universe. If He created their properties, He can change them.
The universe exists because He wills it. Matter exists because He wills it. Matter exhibits the properties that it does because He wills it. If He wills anything in His universe to be other than it is, then it will be so.
And why do you personally prefer this particular interpretation, as opposed to that maintained and believed by the earliest Christians, who were taught by the apostles, themselves?
themuzicman
Well-known member
You're making an assumption not supported in Scripture.
Again, you're assuming nature of flesh changes when the text just tells us that we will be immortal and incorruptible.
(1) Is unnecessary.
(3) is incorrect. It isn't "cannot" it is "has not."
Everything we see in Scripture indicates to us that Jesus has taken on a real human nature, including physical body, and that He remains that same human nature, including physical body.
"Can", yes. But that isn't really the question.
Well, if we are to bring this back to transubstantiation, then you will have to conclude that Christ's body is actually the precise molecular that the RCC uses when it makes the Eucharist bread, because that's all that is there. Scientists have tested it. There's no human DNA.
Because even the earliest Christians were errant. Origen comes to mind. And all you really have are the writings of the ECFs that were preserved. You really can't tell us what even all the Early Church writers believed.
glassjester
Well-known member
The philosophical premises underlying transubstantiation would have us expect no different.
Brother, are you of the opinion that human beings have direct access to substance?
themuzicman
Well-known member
And this is the problem. That philosophical premise has been demonstrated by modern science to be false.
I am of the opinion that this is purely metaphysics, and has no bearing on the physical in any way, as modern science has shown. Since the body of Christ was physical, we would expect a physical manifestation. To say that it is purely metaphysical is to appeal to the symbolic interpretation.
glassjester
Well-known member
That's assuming the human intellect directly perceives physical reality, as it truly exists. But we don't.
We can't possibly.
themuzicman
Well-known member
Really? Ever heard of this thing called "science"? You know, the study of physical reality?
And from science, we know that human flesh is constructed with a particular set of identifiable molecules and arrangements.
Are you denying that we know this?
glassjester
Well-known member
No. I am denying the implicit metaphysical claim that precedes it.
That claim (which I deny) is: Human beings directly perceive substance.
We only perceive the properties exhibited by substances, not substances themselves.
Even then, the properties which we are able to detect are filtered through our severely limited tools, senses, and intellects.
Last edited:
themuzicman
Well-known member
That claim isn't being made from an Aristotlean perspective. The Aristotlean metaphysical ontology has been displaced by modern science. There is no "substance" that is "human flesh" or "bread" or "tables" or "laptop computers." These things are nothing more than human invented categories to describe a particular range of molecular compositions.
And this has been the point all along. There is no "substance" that can be changed. Physical human flesh is described in molecular terms. If you want to say that the bread doesn't become physical human flesh, that's fine, but then it isn't Christ's body, either.
Yes, I understand Aristotlean ontology. Unfortunately, as a way to describe some mystical existence relative to the physical world, it's dead.
Interesting conversation.
:thumb:
About the question of whether God changes the physical properties, it made me think of the Lord in the burning bush.
What was physical and what was not?
Was the bush a physical bush that was already there, and a fire appeared on it out of nowhere; or did the bush & the fire appear together out of nowhere?
If the bush and the fire were both physical, then some properties were changed so the fire would not consume the bush.
:thumb:
About the question of whether God changes the physical properties, it made me think of the Lord in the burning bush.
What was physical and what was not?
Was the bush a physical bush that was already there, and a fire appeared on it out of nowhere; or did the bush & the fire appear together out of nowhere?
If the bush and the fire were both physical, then some properties were changed so the fire would not consume the bush.
The body and blood of Jesus are to satisfy the law.
If someone does you a great harm and you want justice seen in the person who committed the crime and punishment given.
You take them to court and you ask that the judge brings down the full weight of the law and demand satisfaction.
In the court of God when a sinner is accused it is asked, is the crucifixion and death of the Son of God enough payment? Can you forgive those that sin against you or shall you reject this justice and persue your own?
If someone does you a great harm and you want justice seen in the person who committed the crime and punishment given.
You take them to court and you ask that the judge brings down the full weight of the law and demand satisfaction.
In the court of God when a sinner is accused it is asked, is the crucifixion and death of the Son of God enough payment? Can you forgive those that sin against you or shall you reject this justice and persue your own?