Communion - Lord's Supper - Eucharist

[GodsGrace]

To GodsGrace,

1. I don't think Jesus was speaking of the Eucharist (which didn't exist yet)

2. I don't think it supports that at the utterance of words, a CHANGE happens so that one reality is replaced by a foreign, different reality via the precise, technical, physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian accidents. IF the verse refers to Communion (and there is zero support for that), it would support Real Presence (position # 1) but offer nothing whatsoever to support the medieval invention of Catholic Scholasticism, Transubstantiation (position #2).

.

As to John 6:60, some of the disciples said they were going to leave Jesus because He said something that was too difficult to understand or to accept ... it's when He said that they had to "eat" His body. This sounded weird to them, which means that they understood it in a literal sense.

Also, if you check the Greek, if you're interested,
John 6:54 has the word "eat" in it. As opposed to the word being used in the verse just above...in verse 54 it means to chew.

I've always found these two verses very interesting. It's also obvious from reading the ECF who were either with an Apostle, or learned from one of their followers, that they took communion in a very serious manner and "ate" together as often as possible. The CC is the only church doing this nowadays. Some churches have communion only twice a year -- this is clearly not what Jesus wanted, and which Luke confirmed.
Acts 20:7

 

[Philip James]

They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers

 

[Josiah]

To BreadofLife

Uh huh - and to say that Jesus held up a hunk of bread and declared it to be His actual Flesh WITHOUT any change occurring is nothing but prideful denial.

It's an affirmation and belief in what Jesus said and Paul penned - which was "IS" and not "CHANGED from one reality to a different, foreign one via the precise, technical, physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents."

I'm the one affirming what Jesus and Paul said - insisting they are telling the truth and fully believing them. You are the one insisting (dogmatically) they misspoke and meant something different than what they clearly said.

Jesus didn't have to say, "This bread I am holding is now changing into my Body."
He simply had to say, "This IS my Body."

Two very different things, aren't they.

When Peter looked to Jesus and said "You ARE (same verb we're discussing here!!!) the Christ, the Son of the Living God" that does NOT mean that at Peter's utterance of the syllibles, Jesus CHANGED from one reality INTO an entirely different one via the precise, technical, physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and SEEMING APPEARANCE not fully real but technically Aristotelian accidents. Nope, it means that Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God. He was/is ALSO fully, 100% a man, too.

I suggest you get out a dictionary (any will do, even one published by a Catholic owned company) and look up the word "IS". It might be an epiphany to you. And I suggest you get out a Bible, any Bible (a Catholic one is just fine) and look up these eucharistic texts (include John 6 if you like). READ it. Just try READING the texts, the actually words there (those things formed by black letters on a white page, forming words). Try underlining each of the following words as they appear: "changed" "from" "into" "alchemy" "transubstantiation" "not" "seems" "appearance" "Aristotle" "accidence" "property" Got it? Count the number of underlined words. NOW, do the same with these words: "is" "body" "blood" "bread" "wine" "forgiveness." Hum..... What did Jesus and Paul ACTUALLY say? If you'd do that, there will come to you an epiphany.

You have a very unlimited power of God . . .

Thank you. I just accept what Jesus said. No need to deny it and delete it and substitute other words in order to try to make Jesus "jibe" with (wrong) ancient pagan philosophies and (wrong) pagan prescience ideas. I just believe God.




- Josiah



.

 

[BreadOfLife]

As to John 6:60, some of the disciples said they were going to leave Jesus because He said something that was too difficult to understand or to accept ... it's when He said that they had to "eat" His body. This sounded weird to them, which means that they understood it in a literal sense.

Also, if you check the Greek, if you're interested,
John 6:54 has the word "eat" in it. As opposed to the word being used in the verse just above...in verse 54 it means to chew.

I've always found these two verses very interesting. It's also obvious from reading the ECF who were either with an Apostle, or learned from one of their followers, that they took communion in a very serious manner and "ate" together as often as possible. The CC is the only church doing this nowadays. Some churches have communion only twice a year -- this is clearly not what Jesus wanted, and which Luke confirmed.
Acts 20:7

Just for the record - it appears you were responding to Josiah - not me.
I am a proponent of the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 . . .

 

[GodsGrace]

To BreadofLife





It's an affirmation and belief in what Jesus said and Paul penned - which was "IS" and not "CHANGED from one reality to a different, foreign one via the precise, technical, physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents."

I'm the one affirming what Jesus and Paul said - insisting they are telling the truth and fully believing them. You are the one insisting (dogmatically) they misspoke and meant something different than what they clearly said.






Two very different things, aren't they.

When Peter looked to Jesus and said "You ARE (same verb we're discussing here!!!) the Christ, the Son of the Living God" that does NOT mean that at Peter's utterance of the syllibles, Jesus CHANGED from one reality INTO an entirely different one via the precise, technical, physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and SEEMING APPEARANCE not fully real but technically Aristotelian accidents. Nope, it means that Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God. He was/is ALSO fully, 100% a man, too.

I suggest you get out a dictionary (any will do, even one published by a Catholic owned company) and look up the word "IS". It might be an epiphany to you. And I suggest you get out a Bible, any Bible (a Catholic one is just fine) and look up these eucharistic texts (include John 6 if you like). READ it. Just try READING the texts, the actually words there (those things formed by black letters on a white page, forming words). Try underlining each of the following words as they appear: "changed" "from" "into" "alchemy" "transubstantiation" "not" "seems" "appearance" "Aristotle" "accidence" "property" Got it? Count the number of underlined words. NOW, do the same with these words: "is" "body" "blood" "bread" "wine" "forgiveness." Hum..... What did Jesus and Paul ACTUALLY say? If you'd do that, there will come to you an epiphany.






Thank you. I just accept what Jesus said. No need to deny it and delete it and substitute other words in order to try to make Jesus "jibe" with (wrong) ancient pagan philosophies and (wrong) pagan prescience ideas. I just believe God.




- Josiah



.

Do you think the Catholic bible is different from the protestant bible?
There's only one bible. It's just that the Catholic one has 7 extra books in it.

P.S. And they're all in the O.T., so no problem for the communion verses.

 

[GodsGrace]

Just for the record - it appears you were responding to Josiah - not me.
I am a proponent of the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 . . .

Ooops. How did that happen?
Sorry, you're right.

 

[BreadOfLife]

To BreadofLife

It's an affirmation and belief in what Jesus said and Paul penned - which was "IS" and not "CHANGED from one reality to a different, foreign one via the precise, technical, physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents."

I'm the one affirming what Jesus and Paul said - insisting they are telling the truth and fully believing them. You are the one insisting (dogmatically) they misspoke and meant something different than what they clearly said.

Two very different things, aren't they.
When Peter looked to Jesus and said "You ARE (same verb we're discussing here!!!) the Christ, the Son of the Living God" that does NOT mean that at Peter's utterance of the syllibles, Jesus CHANGED from one reality INTO an entirely different one via the precise, technical, physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and SEEMING APPEARANCE not fully real but technically Aristotelian accidents. Nope, it means that Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God. He was/is ALSO fully, 100% a man, too.

I suggest you get out a dictionary (any will do, even one published by a Catholic owned company) and look up the word "IS". It might be an epiphany to you. And I suggest you get out a Bible, any Bible (a Catholic one is just fine) and look up these eucharistic texts (include John 6 if you like). READ it. Just try READING the texts, the actually words there (those things formed by black letters on a white page, forming words). Try underlining each of the following words as they appear: "changed" "from" "into" "alchemy" "transubstantiation" "not" "seems" "appearance" "Aristotle" "accidence" "property" Got it? Count the number of underlined words. NOW, do the same with these words: "is" "body" "blood" "bread" "wine" "forgiveness." Hum..... What did Jesus and Paul ACTUALLY say? If you'd do that, there will come to you an epiphany.

Thank you. I just accept what Jesus said. No need to deny it and delete it and substitute other words in order to try to make Jesus "jibe" with (wrong) ancient pagan philosophies and (wrong) pagan prescience ideas. I just believe God.
- Josiah.

Suffice it to say - you're just another dishonest and deceptive anti-Catholic - and nothing more.

On no less that EIGHT posts now - I have had to remind you that the terms "Alchemy" and "Aristotle" have NO place in the Church's official definition of "Transubstantiation" - but your obsession with these terns is clouding your judgement.

I have explained to you - ad nauseam - that Jesus didn't have to tell the Apostles that He was "changing" bread into His flesh because they were THERE and witnessed it. They saw Him raise the dead and change water into wine - so, WHY would they have a problem with His changing bread and wine into flesh and blood??

Remember what Jesus told Thomas:
John 20:29
“Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

YOU weren't at the Last Supper so you refuse to believe.
Blessed are those of US who weren't there either - and STILL believe . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Do you think the Catholic bible is different from the protestant bible?
There's only one bible. It's just that the Catholic one has 7 extra books in it.

P.S. And they're all in the O.T., so no problem for the communion verses.

There are also portions of Daniel and Esther missing from Protestant Bibles.
The commentaries are also very different as are many of the translations.

 

[Josiah]

YOU weren't at the Last Supper so you refuse to believe.

Actually, I'M the one who believes..... YOU are the one insisting Jesus and Paul misspoke. I'M accepting - fully and as truth - what they said, which is "IS" 'BODY' 'BLOOD' 'FORGIVENESS." You are the one deleting what they said and substituting these two pagan philosophies - alchemy's "Transubstantiation" (the very rare, very technical word lock - stock - and barrel from alchemy, NOT one of the several generic words for "change" available), and Aristotle's wrong philosophy of "Accidents" (what you like to call "appearance" in order to deny "real presence".

I've already showed you how changing "IS" to "CHANGE" as you insist, changing reality to just "Aristotelian Accidents" not only means you deny what Jesus and Paul said about the Eucharist, but also causes you to deny the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ and much more. I'm not sure WHY you so powerfully insist on denying what Jesus said and Paul penned.... why you won't believe it....

I stand with what Jesus said and Paul penned. Denying and deleting not one word, substituting not one word. Believing them, insisting they are telling the truth. You regard that as "anti-Catholic" - okay, if you insist that to be Catholic we must disbelieve what Jesus said, delete what Scripture says, substitute (wrong) pagan and prescience philosophies for what God says, well, that's your opinion.



- Josiah


.

 

[GodsGrace]

There are also portions of Daniel and Esther missing from Protestant Bibles.
The commentaries are also very different as are many of the translations.

You mean the commentaries at the bottom of Bible pages? This is correct, of course.
I, personally, don't consider commentaries part of the Bible, but I do understand your point that this would be different for some verses ,,, for instance 1 Corinthians 3 refers to purgatory for Catholics.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Actually, I'M the one who believes..... YOU are the one insisting Jesus and Paul misspoke. I'M accepting - fully and as truth - what they said, which is "IS" 'BODY' 'BLOOD' 'FORGIVENESS." You are the one deleting what they said and substituting these two pagan philosophies - alchemy's "Transubstantiation" (the very rare, very technical word lock - stock - and barrel from alchemy, NOT one of the several generic words for "change" available), and Aristotle's wrong philosophy of "Accidents" (what you like to call "appearance" in order to deny "real presence".

I've already showed you how changing "IS" to "CHANGE" as you insist, changing reality to just "Aristotelian Accidents" not only means you deny what Jesus and Paul said about the Eucharist, but also causes you to deny the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ and much more. I'm not sure WHY you so powerfully insist on denying what Jesus said and Paul penned.... why you won't believe it....

I stand with what Jesus said and Paul penned. Denying and deleting not one word, substituting not one word. Believing them, insisting they are telling the truth. You regard that as "anti-Catholic" - okay, if you insist that to be Catholic we must disbelieve what Jesus said, delete what Scripture says, substitute (wrong) pagan and prescience philosophies for what God says, well, that's your opinion.
- Josiah

Actually - I've exposed your counterfeit.

You CLAIM to "agree" with Jesus and Paul - but you refuse to explain HOW that hunk of bread that Jesus held up WAS His Body. You say that it didn't change because Jesus didn't use the word "change" - but you have yet to tell us how it could be His flesh if it didn't.
Instead, you cloud the conversation with terms like "Aristotlian" and "Alchemy" in a vain effort to throw everybody off of the scent because you DON'T have an explanation.

As an anti-Catholic - you're in the accusation business - not the explanation business . . .

 

[Josiah]

You CLAIM to "agree" with Jesus and Paul

I'M the one agreeing with Jesus and Paul. With EXACTLY what they said/penned (no deletions, no additions, no editing).

I'M the one saying Jesus and Paul told the truth.

I'M the one believing...

You've been ridiculing me for it for pages and pages now.



I believe they said what they meant and meant what they said - and told the truth. "IS" = is. "BODY" = body. "BLOOD" = blood. "WINE" = wine. "BREAD" = bread. "FORGIVENESS" = forgiveness.


I'm the one agreeing with Jesus and Paul. The RCC dogmatically disagreed in 1551 and since, insisting Jesus SHOULD have said "CHANGED from one reality to an entirely foreign one via the precise, technical, physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a MIXTURE of reality and just Aristotelian Accidents."

but you refuse to explain HOW that hunk of bread that Jesus held up WAS His Body.

It is not necessary that we puny humans explain all the physics of how God performs His miracles, nor is His Truth dependent on the ability of our puny brains to explain the physics behind it. The Trinity is not a lie because no human can explain the physics of it but remains a mystery.... the Two Natures of Christ is not a lie because no human can explain the physics of it (BTW, I have a Ph.D. in physics). God is correct because He is.... not because some singular denomination drums up two (wrong) pre-science theories to TRY to deny what God said (in this case, transubstantiation and accidents).


Of course, the individual RC denomination's dogmatization of these two pagan theories in 1551 creates a number of problem (besides stating that Jesus and Paul misspeak and have to be corrected).

1) Two two theories are WRONG, as the RCC itself knows, which is why the RCC now tries to pretend the very, very rare, specific, technical word it uses ("Transubstantiation" - which comes lock, stock and barrel from alchemy) really just means "change" and that the RCC for 400 years SHOULD have used one of the Latin words that just means "change" in some generic sense rather than the very rare specific word for the "change" that alchemy is all about), and why it now likes to use the word "appearance" rather than they very technical name of one of Aristotle's weirdest (and most wrong) ideas - Accidents. Because the two pagan ideas it dogmatized are WRONG, it now has to run from them. As you've tried to do.

2) It eliminates any textual reason to believe in Real Presence. After all, if Christ is truly present, then the meaning of "is" MUST be "is" (and what follows the "is" must "BE"). But by dogmatically insisting Jesus and Paul misspoke in saying "is" and SHOULD have said "CHANGED from one reality into an entirely different one" we now have no reason to accept that Christ is truly present. But they made it even worse by dogmatizating Aristotle's wrong theory of accidents, they insisted that what follows the Institution isn't necessarily - it COULD be reality and it COULD be just a mere Aristotelian Accident. The RCC chose to say that the Body and Blood are the reality ... Zwingli chose to say that the bread and wine are the reality... but textually, neither had any bases for their choice since both eliminated the word "is" and insisted what follows the Consecration isn't necessarily.

The RCC could not leave well enough alone... could not accept that Jesus and Paul meant what they said and what they said is the Truth. It dogmatized two wrong pagan medieval ideas (which it is now embarrassed by) - and in the process, destroyed any textual reason to believe that Jesus IS there by insisting Jesus didin't mean "is" and what follows isn't necessarily. A bit of humility.... a conviction that Jesus told the truth.... would have caused the RCC to just accept what Jesus said and Paul penned - even if this perhaps didn't jibe with two (wrong) medieval pagan human philosphies.... a bit of humility might have caused the RC denomination to say "Maybe Jesus knows what He's talking about and telling the truth, maybe a miracle is here" and just accept it. Sometimes, the RC denomination doesn't know when to shut up and just believe, just trust, bow before Jesus instead of insisting Jesus must bow to the RC denomination's individual dogmatization of pagan ideas.



See post #1




.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I'M the one agreeing with Jesus and Paul. With EXACTLY what they said/penned (no deletions, no additions, no editing).
I'M the one saying Jesus and Paul told the truth.
I'M the one believing...
You've been ridiculing me for it for pages and pages now.

I believe they said what they meant and meant what they said - and told the truth. "IS" = is. "BODY" = body. "BLOOD" = blood. "WINE" = wine. "BREAD" = bread. "FORGIVENESS" = forgiveness.
I'm the one agreeing with Jesus and Paul. The RCC dogmatically disagreed in 1551 and since, insisting Jesus SHOULD have said "CHANGED from one reality to an entirely foreign one via the precise, technical, physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a MIXTURE of reality and just Aristotelian Accidents."

It is not necessary that we puny humans explain all the physics of how God performs His miracles, nor is His Truth dependent on the ability of our puny brains to explain the physics behind it. The Trinity is not a lie because no human can explain the physics of it but remains a mystery.... the Two Natures of Christ is not a lie because no human can explain the physics of it (BTW, I have a Ph.D. in physics). God is correct because He is.... not because some singular denomination drums up two (wrong) pre-science theories to TRY to deny what God said (in this case, transubstantiation and accidents).

Of course, the individual RC denomination's dogmatization of these two pagan theories in 1551 creates a number of problem (besides stating that Jesus and Paul misspeak and have to be corrected).

1) Two two theories are WRONG, as the RCC itself knows, which is why the RCC now tries to pretend the very, very rare, specific, technical word it uses ("Transubstantiation" - which comes lock, stock and barrel from alchemy) really just means "change" and that the RCC for 400 years SHOULD have used one of the Latin words that just means "change" in some generic sense rather than the very rare specific word for the "change" that alchemy is all about), and why it now likes to use the word "appearance" rather than they very technical name of one of Aristotle's weirdest (and most wrong) ideas - Accidents. Because the two pagan ideas it dogmatized are WRONG, it now has to run from them. As you've tried to do.

2) It eliminates any textual reason to believe in Real Presence. After all, if Christ is truly present, then the meaning of "is" MUST be "is" (and what follows the "is" must "BE"). But by dogmatically insisting Jesus and Paul misspoke in saying "is" and SHOULD have said "CHANGED from one reality into an entirely different one" we now have no reason to accept that Christ is truly present. But they made it even worse by dogmatizating Aristotle's wrong theory of accidents, they insisted that what follows the Institution isn't necessarily - it COULD be reality and it COULD be just a mere Aristotelian Accident. The RCC chose to say that the Body and Blood are the reality ... Zwingli chose to say that the bread and wine are the reality... but textually, neither had any bases for their choice since both eliminated the word "is" and insisted what follows the Consecration isn't necessarily.

The RCC could not leave well enough alone... could not accept that Jesus and Paul meant what they said and what they said is the Truth. It dogmatized two wrong pagan medieval ideas (which it is now embarrassed by) - and in the process, destroyed any textual reason to believe that Jesus IS there by insisting Jesus didin't mean "is" and what follows isn't necessarily. A bit of humility.... a conviction that Jesus told the truth.... would have caused the RCC to just accept what Jesus said and Paul penned - even if this perhaps didn't jibe with two (wrong) medieval pagan human philosphies.... a bit of humility might have caused the RC denomination to say "Maybe Jesus knows what He's talking about and telling the truth, maybe a miracle is here" and just accept it. Sometimes, the RC denomination doesn't know when to shut up and just believe, just trust, bow before Jesus instead of insisting Jesus must bow to the RC denomination's individual dogmatization of pagan ideas.
See post #1.

ALL of your posts are almost an EXACT repeat of your previous posts - and NONE of them have any evidence.

You keep insisting that you "agree" with Jesus and Paul - but you DON'T. You don't because you pretend that the bread Jesus held up DIDN'T change - yet it "was" His flesh. When Jesus changed water into wine at the Wedding at Cana - he didn't use the word "change" - but the water certainly changed from water to wine.

The SAME is true at the Last Supper.
He didn't HAVE to use the "magical" word "change" in order for the bread to actually change substance.

YOU'RE stuck on "Aristotle" and magical "alchemy" - but the Church isn't.
It simply realizes that this is a miracle from God. YOU don't have to believe it for it to be true.
It's true in SPITE of your lack of faith . . .

 

[Josiah]

You don't because you pretend that the bread Jesus held up DIDN'T change - yet it "was" His flesh.

"IS" and "CHANGED" are two entirely different verbs. Which one did Jesus say? Which one did Paul write?

When Jesus changed water into wine at the Wedding at Cana - he didn't use the word "change" - but the water certainly changed from water to wine.

John 2:9 says that the water "has become wine." Where in any Eucharistic text does the word "become" appear? Or "change" Or "convert?'" Or "transubstantiation"? Or "not?" Or "seems?" Or "appears?" Or "into?"


When the Apostle said to Jesus, "You ARE (same verb!) the Christ, the Son of the Living God," did Jesus CHANGE at the utterance of those words, undergoing an alchemic TRANSUBSTANTIATION from one reality into an entirely different one leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian ACCIDENTS so that, at the moment forward, He had the ACCIDENTS of a human but had become the Son of God - being ONE thing (man) before and a different thing (GOD) after? Or is the Apostle simply telling the truth - Jesus IS God (without denying He is also man)? When Jesus speaks of the Father, does that mean at that utterance, the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity convert into the First via an alchemic transubstantiation, becoming the Father? See what SILLY, absurd stuff you've gotten yourself into? Why not just go with what Jesus said and Paul wrote - hold it's the TRUTH - and believe? The verb they used is "IS". IS..... BODY..... BLOOD..... BREAD..... WINE..... FORGIVENESS. That's that why said/wrote. No need to delete it and substitute a couple of (WRONG) pagan philosophies instead.






.

 

[BreadOfLife]

"IS" and "CHANGED" are two entirely different verbs. Which one did Jesus say? Which one did Paul write?

John 2:9 says that the water "has become wine." Where in any Eucharistic text does the word "become" appear? Or "change" Or "convert?'" Or "transubstantiation"? Or "not?" Or "seems?" Or "appears?" Or "into?"

When the Apostle said to Jesus, "You ARE (same verb!) the Christ, the Son of the Living God," did Jesus CHANGE at the utterance of those words, undergoing an alchemic TRANSUBSTANTIATION from one reality into an entirely different one leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian ACCIDENTS so that, at the moment forward, He had the ACCIDENTS of a human but had become the Son of God - being ONE thing (man) before and a different thing (GOD) after? Or is the Apostle simply telling the truth - Jesus IS God (without denying He is also man)? When Jesus speaks of the Father, does that mean at that utterance, the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity convert into the First via an alchemic transubstantiation, becoming the Father? See what SILLY, absurd stuff you've gotten yourself into? Why not just go with what Jesus said and Paul wrote - hold it's the TRUTH - and believe? The verb they used is "IS". IS..... BODY..... BLOOD..... BREAD..... WINE..... FORGIVENESS. That's that why said/wrote. No need to delete it and substitute a couple of (WRONG) pagan philosophies instead.

Your entire argument is absurd because you STILL haven't answered how a hunk of bread can be the FLESH of Christ without a change.
Instead - you try desperately to cloud the issue with irrelevant words like "Aristotlian" and "Alechemic" - but in reality - you have no answer.

A change definitely occurred to Jesus Body after the Resurrection - but the Bible doesn't SAY that He "changed". Is this just another "Catholic lie" - or was His body glorified??

At the Last supper, Jesus told the leaders of His Church that the Holy spirit would guide them to ALL Truth (John 16:12-15). This pretty much echoes His words to the Apostles in Matt. 16:18-19 and Matt. 18:15-18 when He assured them that He was giving SUPREME Authority to His Church - that WHATEVER it ordained on earth would also be ordained in Heaven.

And Jesus had a warning for spiritually-prideful people like you who reject His teachings.
He said:
Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

I'll take the words of my Lord over the rants of an angry anti-Catholic ANY day of the week . . .

 

[Josiah]

Your entire argument is absurd because you STILL haven't answered how a hunk of bread can be the FLESH of Christ without a change.

How can the Apostle say to Christ, "You ARE (same verb!) the Christ, the Son of the Living God" without His human nature CHANGING into divinity.

Why is it mandated that an individual person or denomination in the 16th Century tell God HOW He performs His miracles - and indeed tell Him He MUST do this via two WRONG pagan philosophies? Why must God submit to two wrong medieval pagan philosophies?

Jesus had a warning for spiritually-prideful people like you who reject His teachings.

Remember: I'M the one accepting and believing EXACTLY, VERBATIM what Jesus and Paul taught. Nothing deleted, nothing substituted, nothing added. YOU are the one having a LOT of trouble with it, YOU are the one ridiculing my full acceptance of Jesus' and Paul's teaching - literally, verbatim, nothing changed...




.

 

[BreadOfLife]

How can the Apostle say to Christ, "You ARE (same verb!) the Christ, the Son of the Living God" without His human nature CHANGING into divinity.

Why is it mandated that an individual person or denomination in the 16th Century tell God HOW He performs His miracles - and indeed tell Him He MUST do this via two WRONG pagan philosophies? Why must God submit to two wrong medieval pagan philosophies?

And your abject IGNORANCE is your downfall . . .

As I educated yo before - virtually EVERY heresy begins with the misconception of the nature of God.
Jesus didn't go "changing" from one nature to another. He unites to himself TWO INDIVISIBLE natures: Human and Divine.

Peter telling him that He WAS the Christ and the SON of God was true - and He didn't have to "change" or "shape-shift".

Remember: I'M the one accepting and believing EXACTLY, VERBATIM what Jesus and Paul taught. Nothing deleted, nothing substituted, nothing added. YOU are the one having a LOT of trouble with it, YOU are the one ridiculing my full acceptance of Jesus' and Paul's teaching - literally, verbatim, nothing changed....

No -you're rejecting the fact that the bread and wine changed into His flesh and blood.
He held up Bread - and He distributed His Flesh. Same with the wine and His Blood . . .

 

[Josiah]

Jesus didn't go "changing" from one nature to another. He unites to himself TWO INDIVISIBLE natures: Human and Divine.

Then you agree with me, your absurd and silly insistence that the verb "to be" MANDATES a change from one reality into a different reality is not only absurd but leads to heresy. You might want to think about that.

No -you're rejecting the fact that the bread and wine changed into His flesh and blood.

I am rejecting that medieval invention. I'm accepting and believing what Jesus said and Paul penned instead.

He held up Bread - and He distributed His Flesh. Same with the wine and His Blood . . .

EXACTLY!!! Nothing about anything "becoming" or "changing". Nothing about any alchemic "transubstantiation" or Aristotelian "accidents." Nothing about anything seeming to be but isn't really.

I'm believing and accepting EXACTLY what Jesus said and Paul penned. VERBATIM. Nothing deleted. Nothing substituted. Nothing added. NO dogmatization of wrong pagan philosophies. No denials. No correcting Jesus. He said "IS" - and I accept that. He said "BODY" and I accept that. He said "BLOOD" and I accept that. He said "bread" and "wine" and I accept that. He said "FORGIVENESS" and I accept that. No denials. No disbelief. No deleting of what they said and replacing it with WRONG pagan philosophies such as "transubstantiation" and "accidents." And certainly no silly, absurd (and often heretical) insistence that the meaning of "IS" must be "CHANGED from one reality to a different one" (glad to see you finally recognize the absurdity and potential heresy of your whole premise).




.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Then you agree with me, your absurd and silly insistence that the verb "to be" MANDATES a change from one reality into a different reality is not only absurd but leads to heresy. You might want to think about that.
I am rejecting that medieval invention. I'm accepting and believing what Jesus said and Paul penned instead.

EXACTLY!!! Nothing about anything "becoming" or "changing". Nothing about any alchemic "transubstantiation" or Aristotelian "accidents." Nothing about anything seeming to be but isn't really.

I'm believing and accepting EXACTLY what Jesus said and Paul penned. VERBATIM. Nothing deleted. Nothing substituted. Nothing added. NO dogmatization of wrong pagan philosophies. No denials. No correcting Jesus. He said "IS" - and I accept that. He said "BODY" and I accept that. He said "BLOOD" and I accept that. He said "bread" and "wine" and I accept that. He said "FORGIVENESS" and I accept that. No denials. No disbelief. No deleting of what they said and replacing it with WRONG pagan philosophies such as "transubstantiation" and "accidents." And certainly no silly, absurd (and often heretical) insistence that the meaning of "IS" must be "CHANGED from one reality to a different one" (glad to see you finally recognize the absurdity and potential heresy of your whole premise)..

No - it changes into His flesh at some point between coming out of the oven and consuming it.
YOUR problem is a semantic one - pointless, really. The bread can't be His flesh without a change to the substance.

Actually - YOUR problem is that you're an anti-Catholic - and like ALL anti-Catholics, you have an ax to grind. AND, like all anti-Catholics, your position is simply one of rebellion - not faith or knowledge . . .

 

[Josiah]

No - it changes into His flesh at some point , s

So your individual,f singular denomination dogmatically declared at it's little Council of Trent in 1551.... But as you've repeatedly proven, Jesus said no such thing, Paul penned no such thing, the Bible says no such thing. The verb is "IS" (being, existing, present, there, real) not "changed from one reality to a completely foreign one via the precise, technical, physcial mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian accidents." What Jesus said, what Paul penned, what the Bible says is "IS' 'BODY' 'BLOOD' 'BREAD' 'WINE' 'FORGIVENESS.' What is NOT said is "changed" "convert" "alchemy" "transubstantiation" "from" "to" "seems" "not" "mere" "appearance" "Aristotle" "accidence" "appearance" "property"

The bread can't be His flesh without a change to the substance.

Then Jesus can't be God without His flesh changing from humanity to divinity. Your absolutely silly and absurd claim also means you must deny the Two Natures of Christ, the Trinity, etc., etc., etc., etc. We accept that Jesus IS human and IS divine because the word "IS" is used in the texts, not the word "changed."

You just keep proving you won't accept that Jesus said, you refuse to believe what the Bible says, you must delete what God said and replace it with what your individual denomination alone declared in 1551; and you are just evading the obvious: your whole premise is not only silly and absurd and wrong - but it actually leads to heresy, not only regarding the Eucharist but also the Two Natures of Christ, the Trinity and much more.





.