How many former Catholics are here?

[shepherdsword]

Weighing a dead body to measure the presence of a soul is very much like doing a DNA test on something that has the appearance of bread and wine. If it appears as bread why on Earth by the naked eye, or using microscopy, would the DNA not appear as bread or wine? I have performed countless experiments involving DNA in research and I still run many tests now that I am in the lucrative/stable clinical side. DNA is not a magical thing that tells you what at the deepest level a substance is.

If all it has is the DNA of bread and wine then all it is is bread and wine.

DNA evidence makes for a rock solid case when it comes to law enforcement or determining paternity - and for good reason. It provides a match, much like early tests of hair, fingerprints and even blood type. DNA does not tell you what a substance is at a deeper level. It can determine species or race. It does not give clues to the deeper levels that can only be yet understood by philosophy.

DNA makes a rock solid case that the host has not been magically turned to real flesh by some priest's "hocus pocus".

If Jesus of 0 AD had instead showed up 2000 years late and walked the Earth today and was put on trial and had His DNA tested, what would that find? Magic? A glowing chromosome that makes Him God? You would find DNA of a middle-eastern man no different than others during his time. His hair, blood and fingerprints would seem normal, but potential unique enough for legal purposes. Would Jesus have magical DNA?

I agree that Jesus DNA would be human. If the host was turned into his flesh we would expect it to have human traits.

DNA is made of molecules, molecules are made of atoms, atoms are made of subatomic particles. Subatomic particles are made of things... and so on. When it comes to a true Eucharist, it has the appearance of bread/wine by all that can be determined by our senses and instruments.

If all the senses can detect is bread and wine and there is no DNA evidence to make the idolatrous claim that the host has actually been transmuted into flesh, then all the host is........is bread and wine. Let's look at what the bible says:

“But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.”

“If anyone of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person… For the life of the flesh is in the blood.”

“You shall not eat any blood, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwellings.”

“Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life.”

…that they abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what has been strangled, and from blood.”

 

[HealthyShape]

I did not write that Christ gave an explicit commandment.



I do


Regarding?

I was not talking to you.

 

[Brakelite]

I mean, let's be honest. The moment a Sabbath keeper raises his or her voice above the crowd, be he/she an Adventist or Messianic, the hatred against the Sabbath itself becomes palpable, and all manner of self justification networks kick in. There arise a crescendo of objections against the Sabbath, with a retinue of scriptural references that all fall short of veracity.

What explicit commandment?

Christ never made such a commandment and if that occurred

Exodus 20:8-11

 

[HealthyShape]

Exodus 20:8-11

The book of Exodus was written in its final form somewhere around the 7th century before Christ.

The explicit words of Christ are in Gospels - Matthew, Luke, Mark, John. Somebody may want to include also the book of Acts or the book of Revelation as another source of some quotations.

 

[shepherdsword]

I mean, let's be honest. The moment a Sabbath keeper raises his or her voice above the crowd, be he/she an Adventist or Messianic, the hatred against the Sabbath itself becomes palpable, and all manner of self justification networks kick in. There arise a crescendo of objections against the Sabbath, with a retinue of scriptural references that all fall short of veracity.



Exodus 20:8-11

Name one single person that has said they hate the sabbath. What is objected to is those who exalt the Sabbath as an enforced day that people are hell bound if they don't keep. Paul on the issue:

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: ( yes, "sabbath days" include the 7th day. If it didn't Paul would have mentioned it)

Paul would have also mentioned it here:

Ro 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind

So yeah, keep the sabbath if that is your conviction. However, don't invent some doctrine that states that not keeping it is the mark of the beast. THAT is what people come against.

 

[Brakelite]

The book of Exodus was written in its final form somewhere around the 7th century before Christ.

The explicit words of Christ are in Gospels - Matthew, Luke, Mark, John. Somebody may want to include also the book of Acts or the book of Revelation as another source of some led quotations.

Jesus said no-one has seen God at any time. So who was Moses talking to on Mt Sinai? Who wrote the commandments and gave the tables to Moses? Who was it that led Israel throughout the wilderness, appearing as a cloud by day and a fire by night? Who was the Rock that followed them? Who was the Angel in the wilderness spoken of by Paul? If you need help, read Acts 7.

 

[HealthyShape]

Jesus said no-one has seen God at any time. So who was Moses talking to on Mt Sinai? Who wrote the commandments and gave the tables to Moses? Who was it that led Israel throughout the wilderness, appearing as a cloud by day and a fire by night? Who was the Rock that followed them? Who was the Angel in the wilderness spoken of by Paul? If you need help, read Acts 7.

When we say that Christ explicitly said or did something, we mean Jesus Christ, the incarnate Logos in flesh. Or else you are confusing people.

The Law given to Israel was just until Christ and only for Jews, so the commandment in Exodus has nothing to do with us. We are church, not the ancient Israel.

 

[Chihuahua]

If all it has is the DNA of bread and wine then all it is is bread and wine.

If the Eucharist has the appearance of bread and wine, it will have the appearance of bread and wine, regardless of how closely it is physically examined. It is very arbitrary to argue that God would somehow need to change the DNA yet maintain all other appearances. Regardless of what reaction it is put through, the results will appear the same.

DNA makes a rock solid case that the host has not been magically turned to real flesh by some priest's "hocus pocus".

That would be an arbitrary reaction and basis which only shows it has the appearance of bread and wine.

I agree that Jesus DNA would be human. If the host was turned into his flesh we would expect it to have human traits.

It becomes the gloried body and blood of Christ. You are even demonstrating the meaninglessness of your standard. If Jesus was on trial a DNA test would prove nothing. It becomes the substance of whatever is the gloried body while maintaining the appearance.

If all the senses can detect is bread and wine and there is no DNA evidence to make the idolatrous claim that the host has actually been transmuted into flesh, then all the host is........is bread and wine. Let's look at what the bible says:

If you want not to believe His very words as recorded in scripture, you are welcome to carry out the mockery performed in gatherings of so-called Christians. I am sure a certain someone gets a chuckle out of the mockery, especially when they use the very words Christ did. This is my body which will be given up... just kidding!

 

[Chihuahua]

I mean, let's be honest. The moment a Sabbath keeper raises his or her voice above the crowd, be he/she an Adventist or Messianic, the hatred against the Sabbath itself becomes palpable, and all manner of self justification networks kick in. There arise a crescendo of objections against the Sabbath, with a retinue of scriptural references that all fall short of veracity.



Exodus 20:8-11

Yes, that is one of the commandments, not an explicit commandment given by Christ.

 

[Chihuahua]

I mean, let's be honest. The moment a Sabbath keeper raises his or her voice above the crowd, be he/she an Adventist or Messianic, the hatred against the Sabbath itself becomes palpable, and all manner of self justification networks kick in. There arise a crescendo of objections against the Sabbath, with a retinue of scriptural references that all fall short of veracity.



Exodus 20:8-11

No one hates anyone for believing a theology adopted by a twice failed apocalyptic cult. People will point out the folly of said belief.

 

[shepherdsword]

If the Eucharist has the appearance of bread and wine, it will have the appearance of bread and wine, regardless of how closely it is physically examined. It is very arbitrary to argue that God would somehow need to change the DNA yet maintain all other appearances. Regardless of what reaction it is put through, the results will appear the same.

That would be an arbitrary reaction and basis which only shows it has the appearance of bread and wine.

If it was actually flesh then it could be verified with testing

It becomes the gloried body and blood of Christ. You are even demonstrating the meaninglessness of your standard. If Jesus was on trial a DNA test would prove nothing. It becomes the substance of whatever is the gloried body while maintaining the appearance.

This has nothing to do with putting Jesus on trail. The discussion is about if a priest has the power to call Jesus down from heaven and transmute a wheat cracker into his actual flesh.

If you want not to believe His very words as recorded in scripture, you are welcome to carry out the mockery performed in gatherings of so-called Christians. I am sure a certain someone gets a chuckle out of the mockery, especially when they use the very words Christ did. This is my body which will be given up... just kidding!

If the Eucharist has the appearance of bread and wine, it will have the appearance of bread and wine, regardless of how closely it is physically examined. It is very arbitrary to argue that God would somehow need to change the DNA yet maintain all other appearances. Regardless of what reaction it is put through, the results will appear the same.

That would be an arbitrary reaction and basis which only shows it has the appearance of bread and wine.


It becomes the gloried body and blood of Christ. You are even demonstrating the meaninglessness of your standard. If Jesus was on trial a DNA test would prove nothing. It becomes the substance of whatever is the gloried body while maintaining the appearance.


If you want not to believe His very words as recorded in scripture, you are welcome to carry out the mockery performed in gatherings of so-called Christians. I am sure a certain someone gets a chuckle out of the mockery, especially when they use the very words Christ did. This is my body which will be given up... just kidding!

I will take this as an admission that the claim of the host becoming the Lord's actual flesh cannot be verified with any evidence.

 

[Chihuahua]

If it was actually flesh then it could be verified with testing

If it appears as bread and wine it is going to appear as bread and wine. If you dip it in a liquid, it will appear accordingly. If you examine the proteins, they will appear as bread and wine.

This has nothing to do with putting Jesus on trail. The discussion is about if a priest has the power to call Jesus down from heaven and transmute a wheat cracker into his actual flesh.

I believe Jesus makes promises He upholds and means what He says. It is the Holy Spirit that changes the substance while appearances remain the same.

I will take this as an admission that the claim of the host becoming the Lord's actual flesh cannot be verified with any evidence.

The host maintains its appearance. If you put it under a high powered microscope, it will appear the same. If you use x-rays, it will appear the same. The substance cannot be verified if the appearance remains the same.

 

[Brakelite]

When we say that Christ explicitly said or did something, we mean Jesus Christ, the incarnate Logos in flesh. Or else you are confusing people.

The Law given to Israel was just until Christ and only for Jews, so the commandment in Exodus has nothing to do with us. We are church, not the ancient Israel.

When the Son of God became incarnate, He changed His nature, becoming human, and His name. But He was still and always will be the Son of God.

“And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. ”
1 Corinthians 10:4 KJV

Unfeigned Bible

Unfeigned Bible

www.unfeignedbible.app

“37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. 38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: 39 To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt, ”
Acts 7:37-39 KJV

Unfeigned Bible

Unfeigned Bible

www.unfeignedbible.app

 

[Brakelite]

No one hates anyone for believing a theology adopted by a twice failed apocalyptic cult. People will point out the folly of said belief.

Two corrections. The seventh day Adventist church never once set a date. And I never said that anyone would hate people. I said they hate the Sabbath.

 

[amigo de christo]

Two corrections. The seventh day Adventist church never once set a date. And I never said that anyone would hate people. I said they hate the Sabbath.

They never set a date .
Miller did and then along comes lady white to turn it into something else . Big mistake my friend .
But yeah i dont think the SDA itself ever did set a date . T hey do however teach a date set by a false date setter
and turned his error into what they call investigative judgment . If only they would abandon that .
As far as doing the sa bbath . Well it is fri evening to sat evening . But to judge those
who hold not church on said day , not G OOD brakelite . I am not against the sabbath
BUT i t rul y do know WHO IS KING OF THE SABBATH and whose REST WE MUST ENTER INTO . His name JESUS THE CHRIST .
His call , come ye unto me all you who do labor and are weary and YE shall find REST for your souls .

 

[Brakelite]

People will point out the folly of said belief

And I have no problem being challenged on those beliefs....

investigative judgment

...like this one for example. Amigo, the church has held to that belief for over 160 years. It's been studied, discussed, debated, the subject of numerous articles and books, video series, lectures and sermons. And rather than create doubt or contrary argument, it has become more cemented and fixed in our theology. And what's more, those opposed to us have had ample opportunity to explain why they disagree. We don't hide, and all our teachings are open and transparent. You are welcome at any time to voice your objections.

 

[Hazelelponi]

The concern here isn’t about labels as social identities, but about truth and confession.

Scripture itself makes necessary distinctions—not to divide the Body, but to protect the gospel. Jesus and the apostles repeatedly warned against false teaching, false gospels, and false assurances of peace. That requires clarity, not avoidance.

Heaven does not “label” in a human sense, but God does distinguish truth from error, light from darkness, and the gospel of Christ from distortions of it. The New Testament is full of such distinctions because Christ Himself is at stake.

Discussing former Catholicism in this context isn’t about attacking people—it’s about helping those who are wrestling with doctrines like penance, purgatory, and merit to see whether those teachings align with the sufficiency of Christ’s finished work.

Love does not mean silence, and unity does not mean erasing doctrinal boundaries. Biblical unity is unity in the truth (John 17:17), not unity at the expense of it.

If Christ is presented vaguely, doctrine is downplayed, and correction is treated as unloving, then Protestantism itself becomes unintelligible. In that context, it’s not surprising that someone might gravitate toward Rome in search of coherence.

The failure there is not Protestant theology, but Protestant silence where Scripture speaks clearly about Christ and the gospel.

@Debp

 

[HealthyShape]

When the Son of God became incarnate, He changed His nature, becoming human, and His name. But He was still and always will be the Son of God.

“And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. ”
1 Corinthians 10:4 KJV

Unfeigned Bible

Unfeigned Bible

www.unfeignedbible.app

“37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. 38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: 39 To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt, ”
Acts 7:37-39 KJV

Unfeigned Bible

Unfeigned Bible

www.unfeignedbible.app

The point was that your statement is confusing.

The Holy Spirit is God and can give authoritative instructions to Christians. And the church was given authority to bind and loose anything on earth and in heaven.

“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Mt 18:18

It seems you are stuck in the Old Testament era. But we are not ancient Israel, everything changed with the coming of Christ.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

I've met and talked to a few. After they were born again, they became Baptists.

Well most baptists follow the false doctrine of so called "once saved always saved" so they can continue living in sin and try and believe they are still saved.

I've known people who claim to be committed catholics and they too enjoy living in sin while trying to believe they are saved.

Both camps are in serious error.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

How many former Catholics are here?​

Do we count, babylonians, hindu's, buddhists, animists, protestants, gay's, disabled, mentally challenged, millionaires, fashion dolls, greedy, trans.....

Is it necessary to label our selves or others?
What do we think labelling achieves?

Read the OP, it's only asking about former catholics