Communion - Lord's Supper - Eucharist

[BreadOfLife]

You said that Jesus saying "This IS...." requires, mandates, necessitates that one thing CHANGED INTO something else. It's YOUR mandate. Thus, according to your mandate, when Peter says, "You are (same verb as "IS") the Christ, the Son of the Living God" ergo you insist this MANDATES a change happened to Jesus at the utterance of these words, specificially and alchemic transubstantiation changing Jesus from one reality TO a different reality, leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents. You stressed, the verb "is/are" mandates just such a change. I think that's silly. There is NOTHING in that verb that so necessitates (and if it did, you MUST deny the two natures of Christ and the Trinity, among many other things). I hold that that the meaning of "is" is "is" - you hold that it MUST mean "CHANGED from one reality to a completely different foreign reality via the very specific, technical, physical mechanism of an alchemic "transubstantiation" leaving a mixture or reality and Aristotelian Accidents." I simply pointed out that requires you be a heretic.

It's childish and downright silly to think that when Jesus picked up a hunk of bread and declared that it was actually HIS Body - that a change did NOT occur.
The ONLY way I could believe that it didn't change would be if I rejected Christ and considered Him to be a liar. I do NOT - however, YOU seem to be leaning that way.

And, although you seem to have a fondness for the terms "Alchemic" and "Aristotlian" - neither of those terms hold any importance for the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

True, but then the church doesn't teach the unique, new Euchartist dogma - only your singular denomination does, and that only since 1551 as dogma.

Friend, your denomination uses the very rare, very technical word for a certain kind/type of "change" - a word that comes lock, stock and barrel from alchemy. It could have uses several different (more generic) words for change, but it uses a very rare, very specific Latin word for this change - a word taken from alchemy. The Latin word itself includes alchemy.

Friend, your denomination uses the word "accidents" (although, yes, in embarrassment, since Vatican II, it is apt to use a very generic word of 'appearance'). The word "accident" comes lock, stock and barrel from Aristotle (whose philosophies were popular in western Europe during the middle ages), it is the specific title of one of his weirdest theories known as "Aristotelian Accidents." Again, the exclusive rare word the RCC used for over 400 years is the title of this (wrong, absurd) theory of Aristotle.

I always feel like I'm beating a dead horse in my discussions with you because you seem to be enveloped by this dense veil of prideful ignorance.

I don't know how many times I have to explain to you that simply because a dogma or doctrine is declared does NOT mean that the teaching is "new". For example, ALL true Christians believe in the divinity of Christ - yet this doctrine was not defined until the council of Nicaea in AD 325. Does this mean that the Catholic Chgurch simply "invented" this teaching in 325 - or was it that it was officially defined to defeat the Arian Heresy??

You see - YOUR problem isn't simply ignorance, because you have been told this MANY times now. No - YOUR problem is pride. You are too prideful to admit that you are wrong about what the Church teaches about Transubstantiation because if you're wrong about this - then you are wrong about a great many other things . . .

 

[Josiah]

It's childish and downright silly to think that when Jesus picked up a hunk of bread and declared that it was actually HIS Body - that a change did NOT occur.

Try READING post #150, 151, 160.

Your mandate that the verb "to be" requires a CHANGE from one reality to an entirely different one is not only silly but mandates you to embrace several heresies (your mandate requires you reject the Trinity and the Two Natures of Christ, for example, all based on the same verb ("is") and that word meaning "is" - not "changed from one reality to a different one via the precise mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian accidents."

The ONLY way I could believe that it didn't change would be if I rejected Christ and considered Him to be a liar. I do NOT - however, YOU seem to be leaning that way.

Of course, neither Jesus or Paul in ANY eucharistic text EVER even used the words "change" "alchemy" "transubstantiation" "Aristotle" "accident" "appearance" "seems like" "not." The verb they consistently use is "IS." I believe the meaning of "is" is "is." You insist it dogmatically means: "changed from one reality to a 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 insisting that Jesus and Paul didn't lie - and that they MEANT to say "is" rather than "changed from one reality to a 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 insisting they told the truth, you are the one insisting they misspoke.



.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Try READING post #150, 151, 160.
Your mandate that the verb "to be" requires a CHANGE from one reality to an entirely different one is not only silly but mandates you to embrace several heresies (your mandate requires you reject the Trinity and the Two Natures of Christ, for example, all based on the same verb ("is") and that word meaning "is" - not "changed from one reality to a different one via the precise mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian accidents."

Of course, neither Jesus or Paul in ANY eucharistic text EVER even used the words "change" "alchemy" "transubstantiation" "Aristotle" "accident" "appearance" "seems like" "not." The verb they consistently use is "IS." I believe the meaning of "is" is "is." You insist it dogmatically means: "changed from one reality to a 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 insisting that Jesus and Paul didn't lie - and that they MEANT to say "is" rather than "changed from one reality to a 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 insisting they told the truth, you are the one insisting they misspoke.

And the onus is on YOU to prove Jesus and Paul wrong - NOT for ME to prove them right.
It is up to YOU to explain what Jesus meant when He picked up a hunk of bread and a cup of wine and told the Apostles in NO uncertain terms, "This IS my body" and "This IS my blood."

Did He mean that "This is NOW my flesh and blood - but NO change has taken place"??
OR - did He mean, "This is STILL bread and wine and I was just speaking symbolically"??

WHAT did He mean?
And before you say that He was only speaking "symbolically" - I will need for yo to PROVE that.

It would be different if you were an atheist and I was trying to prove the Real Presence altogether. However - you CLAIM to be a follower of Christ, which makes this all the more appalling.

PS - and you can leave alchemy and Aristotle at the door because they have NO part in the doctrine.
I realize that you think that using these words makes you sound smart - but it doesn't . . .

 

[Josiah]

And the onus is on YOU to prove Jesus and Paul wrong - NOT for ME to prove them right.

I'm the one AGREEING with Jesus and Paul.... I'm the one insisting they told the truth and meant EXACTLY what they said.... "IS' 'BODY' 'BLOOD' FORGIVENESS." YOU are the one dogmatically insisting that they should not have said/penned "is" but rather "CHANGED from one reality to a different one via the precise technical physical mechanism of a 'Transubstantiation" leaving behind a mixture of reality and mere Aristotelian Accidents."

The onus is on YOU to prove the new, medieval invention of the RCC - that of transubstantiation, that Jesus and Paul SHOULD have said/penned "CHANGED" not "is."

Apostles in NO uncertain terms, "This IS my body" and "This IS my blood."

That's MY position...

it's called "Real Presence." See the opening post (post #1) position # 1.

You are the one disagreeing, supporting instead the new, medieval invention of your individual denomination - that actually no one ever meant "is" but rather "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 mere appearances (the technical word the RCC dogma uses is "accidents" - the technical name for the Aristotelian philosophy the RCC dogmatized).

WHAT did He mean?

Is. I hold the meaning of "is" is "is." What is so hard about that verb to you?

"IS." It means present, real, existing, there. Look in any dictionary you want (even one published by a Catholic company), you will never find a definition of the verb "to be" as "CHANGED from one reality to a completely different one via the precise technical physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian accidents." Nope. Try looking it up. And try seeing it in the Bible as when Peter said to Jesus, "You ARE the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Is = is. Not "is not" Not "At the chanting of these words, Jesus CHANGED from one reality to an entirely different one via the precise, technical, physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind as mixture of reality and mere Aristotelian Accidents."




.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I'm the one AGREEING with Jesus and Paul.... I'm the one insisting they told the truth and meant EXACTLY what they said.... "IS' 'BODY' 'BLOOD' FORGIVENESS." YOU are the one dogmatically insisting that they should not have said/penned "is" but rather "CHANGED from one reality to a different one via the precise technical physical mechanism of a 'Transubstantiation" leaving behind a mixture of reality and mere Aristotelian Accidents."

The onus is on YOU to prove the new, medieval invention of the RCC - that of transubstantiation, that Jesus and Paul SHOULD have said/penned "CHANGED" not "is."

That's MY position...

it's called "Real Presence." See the opening post (post #1) position # 1.

You are the one disagreeing, supporting instead the new, medieval invention of your individual denomination - that actually no one ever meant "is" but rather "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 mere appearances (the technical word the RCC dogma uses is "accidents" - the technical name for the Aristotelian philosophy the RCC dogmatized).

Is. I hold the meaning of "is" is "is." What is so hard about that verb to you?

"IS." It means present, real, existing, there. Look in any dictionary you want (even one published by a Catholic company), you will never find a definition of the verb "to be" as "CHANGED from one reality to a completely different one via the precise technical physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian accidents." Nope. Try looking it up. And try seeing it in the Bible as when Peter said to Jesus, "You ARE the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Is = is. Not "is not" Not "At the chanting of these words, Jesus CHANGED from one reality to an entirely different one via the precise, technical, physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind as mixture of reality and mere Aristotelian Accidents."

Why do you keep dodging the question??
Your would-be answer is reminiscent of Bill Clinton's "What is 'Is'" excuse during the Monica Lewinsky debacle.

I asked YOU to explain what Jesus meant when He held up a hunk of bread and told the Apostles that it WAS (IS) His Body. Was it bread or was it His flesh, as He said it was??

NOT that complicated.
Just answer the question - and try to do it without using "Alchemy" or "Aristotle".
The Church doesn't use those words, so I'm NOT sure why YOU feel the need to . . .

 

[Josiah]

I asked YOU to explain what Jesus meant

See post 164. If the meaning of any word in it alludes you, try using a dictionary. If it still alludes you, ask me for the definition(s) I mean. But first READ THE WORDS of post 164 (right above). It's pretty simple, not rocket science, it doesn't require a knowledge of alchemy or Aristotle's various philosophies... and doesn't require a need to dodge, evade and change the verb Jesus and Paul used (or dogmatically insist it was a very poor word choice on their part).




.

 

[BreadOfLife]

See post 164. If the meaning of any word in it alludes you, try using a dictionary. If it still alludes you, ask me for the definition(s) I mean. But first READ THE WORDS of post 164 (right above). It's pretty simple, not rocket science, it doesn't require a knowledge of alchemy or Aristotle's various philosophies... and doesn't require a need to dodge, evade and change the verb Jesus and Paul used (or dogmatically insist it was a very poor word choice on their part).

So - by your evasive response, all I can gather is that YOU believe that the bread IS the actual Body of Christ?
Is that what you are saying?

If so - then you need to explain HOW the bread changed from bread to flesh.
If not - then you need to explain WHY Jesus said it was.

Seems to me that all you are having trouble with is the WORD "Transubstantiation".

 

[Josiah]

So - by your evasive response, all I can gather is that YOU believe that the bread IS the actual Body of Christ? Is that what you are saying?

See post 164. And all my previous posts. If the meaning of a word alludes you, try using a dictionary. If it still alludes you, ask the definition of the word.


MY position is that Jesus and Paul were totally truthful, they told the truth. MY position is that they used the word "is" because that's what they meant and that's the best word they could choose for what they meant (they didn't goof, lie or misspeak). My position is that the meaning of "is" is "is." For a long time and a LONG, LONG string of posts, you have been ridiculing, mocking and repudiating my stance.


I hold to Real Presence (see the opening post, post #1, position #1). I therefore reject the medieval invention of the singular, exclusive RC Denomination (the dogma you have been TRYING to support but CONSTANTLY renouncing), that of Transubstantiation/Accidents.

If so - then you need to explain HOW the bread changed from bread to flesh. If not - then you need to explain WHY Jesus said it was.

Jesus never said that.

Jesus never mentioned any change. He never even so much as mentioned "from" or "to." Try looking at the words. The words actually there. Try it (it might be a huge epiphany for you). Try actually reading what Jesus actually said and Paul penned. Try underlining each time Jesus and/or Paul said "changed" "from" "into" "alchemy" "transubstantiation" "not" "only" "seems" "like" "appearance" "Aristotle" "Accidents." Now count how many times those words appear.

Now try this: Do the same with the words "IS" "BODY" "BLOOD" "BREAD" "WINE" "FORGIVENESS." Count the number of times they said those words (unless you continue to insist they misspoke, erred, didn't mean what they said/penned).



No, I don't have to tell Jesus and Paul what they said wrongly.... I don't have to tell God HOW He does anything.... I don't have to explain miracles for God - and especially not my subjecting God to (WRONG) silly ideas of Aristotle or of medieval alchemists.

No, I don't have to tell Jesus how He cannot be BOTH fully God and man because one MUST CHANGE from one into the other and this MUST be by virtue of an alchemic transubstantiation and there MUST be a mixture of reality and accidents as a result.

I hold that Jesus and Paul told the truth. Thus, they meant "IS" and not "CHANGED from one reality to a completely different one via the precise, technical, physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents." I think Jesus and Paul said what they meant and meant what they said and chose EXACTLY the correct words in which to say it.



- Josiah



.

 

[BreadOfLife]

See post 164. And all my previous posts. If the meaning of a word alludes you, try using a dictionary. If it still alludes you, ask the definition of the word.

MY position is that Jesus and Paul were totally truthful, they told the truth. MY position is that they used the word "is" because that's what they meant and that's the best word they could choose for what they meant (they didn't goof, lie or misspeak). My position is that the meaning of "is" is "is." For a long time and a LONG, LONG string of posts, you have been ridiculing, mocking and repudiating my stance.

I hold to Real Presence (see the opening post, post #1, position #1). I therefore reject the medieval invention of the singular, exclusive RC Denomination (the dogma you have been TRYING to support but CONSTANTLY renouncing), that of Transubstantiation/Accidents.

Jesus never said that.

Jesus never mentioned any change. He never even so much as mentioned "from" or "to." Try looking at the words. The words actually there. Try it (it might be a huge epiphany for you). Try actually reading what Jesus actually said and Paul penned. Try underlining each time Jesus and/or Paul said "changed" "from" "into" "alchemy" "transubstantiation" "not" "only" "seems" "like" "appearance" "Aristotle" "Accidents." Now count how many times those words appear.

Now try this: Do the same with the words "IS" "BODY" "BLOOD" "BREAD" "WINE" "FORGIVENESS." Count the number of times they said those words (unless you continue to insist they misspoke, erred, didn't mean what they said/penned).

No, I don't have to tell Jesus and Paul what they said wrongly.... I don't have to tell God HOW He does anything.... I don't have to explain miracles for God - and especially not my subjecting God to (WRONG) silly ideas of Aristotle or of medieval alchemists.

No, I don't have to tell Jesus how He cannot be BOTH fully God and man because one MUST CHANGE from one into the other and this MUST be by virtue of an alchemic transubstantiation and there MUST be a mixture of reality and accidents as a result.

I hold that Jesus and Paul told the truth. Thus, they meant "IS" and not "CHANGED from one reality to a completely different one via the precise, technical, physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents." I think Jesus and Paul said what they meant and meant what they said and chose EXACTLY the correct words in which to say it.
- Josiah.

Again - I don't know why you're be so evasive.

Bread ISN'T flesh. If Jesus held a hunk of bread in His hands and said it was His flesh - then, at SOME point, it changed from simply being bread - even thought that offends you. Nothing to do with "Alchemy" or "Aristotle". Just the plain truth that the substance in His hands became His flesh. It transubstantiated.

As for your gobbldygook above in RED - I don't know why you deny that Jesus had two natures - but this is a Scriptural truth.

Yours is an appalling lack of faith. People like YOU can believe that God merely SPOKE - and the universe leapt into existence. BUT - you cannot believe that He can change bread into His flesh.

 

[Josiah]

Again - I don't know why you're be so evasive.

See post 164 and 168.

I'm agreeing with Jesus and Paul. And I don't agree that Jesus and Paul are being evasive.

MY position is that they are being truthful, they are telling the truth, they are not lying or misleading or misspeaking. MY position is they did NOT mean something radically different than what they said/penned. MY position is that they said "IS" and I think they meant that and did not lie. I think the meaning of "is" is "is." That's not being evasive, it's simply agreeing with Jesus and Paul. Holding they told the truth and that they are correct.

You have offered NOTHING to indicate they misspoke and erred and that they SHOULD have said instead, "there was a fundamental physical CHANGE 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 mere Aristotelian Accidents." In fact, you have proven that Jesus and Paul stated MY position (see the opening post, post #1, position #1) and said NOTHING WHATSOEVER about this weird medieval invention of Catholic Scholasticism.

Just the plain truth that the substance in His hands became His flesh

Get out a dictionary. ANY dictionary. Look up the word "is." Look for a definition that is "become".

Then just try READING the text. You know, actually get out a Bible. A Catholic tome is just fine (no problem). Open it. Actually open the book. Look up these Eucharistic texts. And READ THE WORDS. Just read them. Any word you don't understand, get out that dictionary and look it up. I think this will be a huge epiphany for you.

Then, while you have your Bible open (I assume you have one), UNDERLINE each of the following words: "change" "become" "from" "into" "to" "alchemy" "transubstantiation" "not" "seems" "like" "Aristotle" "Accidents" "appearance" Underline every time those words appear in the eucharistic texts of your Bible (feel free to use a Catholic Bible). Got it? How many times was each word stated? Got it?

Now, with that same Catholic Bible, UNDERLINE each of the following words "is" "body" "blood" "bread" "wine" "forgiveness." Done? Got it? How many times did you underline each word?

Now, what did Jesus say and Paul pen? I'm NOT asking what the individual RC denomination said after 1215, I'm asking what does Jesus say? What did Paul pen?

I don't know why you deny that Jesus had two natures - but this is a Scriptural truth.

I agree. Because the meaning of is typically is is, not CHANGED. So your insistence that "is" mandates some CHANGE from one reality to another is wrong, isn't it? Or else the doctrine of the Two natures of Christ is wrong. Either what is present can be TWO different things - equally at the same time (as in Christ humanity AND divinity) or one must become the other.... does "is" mean "is" or "become" "change" "from/to"? And if the verb "to be" mandates a one thing becoming something different, MUST that be via the precise, technical, physcial mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation and MUST there be a reality AND an Aristotelian Accident - a "mere appearance?"

BUT - you cannot believe that He can change bread into His flesh.

I believe God CAN but nowhere does it say He did.

There is no text that remotely states anything changed. IF you actually read the words (and if you believed them) you'd see the word is "IS" - not "changed" or "become" and certainly not "alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and accidents." Remember: it's you who won't accept what Jesus said and Paul penned, it's you who insists on deleting the words and replacing them with very different ones. MY position is that Jesus and Paul tell the truth. What they actually SAID is TRUE. You are the one with the problem with that.




.

 

[GodsGrace]

See post 164 and 168.

I'm agreeing with Jesus and Paul. And I don't agree that Jesus and Paul are being evasive.

MY position is that they are being truthful, they are telling the truth, they are not lying or misleading or misspeaking. MY position is they did NOT mean something radically different than what they said/penned. MY position is that they said "IS" and I think they meant that and did not lie. I think the meaning of "is" is "is." That's not being evasive, it's simply agreeing with Jesus and Paul. Holding they told the truth and that they are correct.

You have offered NOTHING to indicate they misspoke and erred and that they SHOULD have said instead, "there was a fundamental physical CHANGE 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 mere Aristotelian Accidents." In fact, you have proven that Jesus and Paul stated MY position (see the opening post, post #1, position #1) and said NOTHING WHATSOEVER about this weird medieval invention of Catholic Scholasticism.






Get out a dictionary. ANY dictionary. Look up the word "is." Look for a definition that is "become".

Then just try READING the text. You know, actually get out a Bible. A Catholic tome is just fine (no problem). Open it. Actually open the book. Look up these Eucharistic texts. And READ THE WORDS. Just read them. Any word you don't understand, get out that dictionary and look it up. I think this will be a huge epiphany for you.

Then, while you have your Bible open (I assume you have one), UNDERLINE each of the following words: "change" "become" "from" "into" "to" "alchemy" "transubstantiation" "not" "seems" "like" "Aristotle" "Accidents" "appearance" Underline every time those words appear in the eucharistic texts of your Bible (feel free to use a Catholic Bible). Got it? How many times was each word stated? Got it?

Now, with that same Catholic Bible, UNDERLINE each of the following words "is" "body" "blood" "bread" "wine" "forgiveness." Done? Got it? How many times did you underline each word?

Now, what did Jesus say and Paul pen? I'm NOT asking what the individual RC denomination said after 1215, I'm asking what does Jesus say? What did Paul pen?






I agree. Because the meaning of is typically is is, not CHANGED. So your insistence that "is" mandates some CHANGE from one reality to another is wrong, isn't it? Or else the doctrine of the Two natures of Christ is wrong. Either what is present can be TWO different things - equally at the same time (as in Christ humanity AND divinity) or one must become the other.... does "is" mean "is" or "become" "change" "from/to"? And if the verb "to be" mandates a one thing becoming something different, MUST that be via the precise, technical, physcial mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation and MUST there be a reality AND an Aristotelian Accident - a "mere appearance?"






I believe God CAN but nowhere does it say He did.

There is no text that remotely states anything changed. IF you actually read the words (and if you believed them) you'd see the word is "IS" - not "changed" or "become" and certainly not "alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and accidents." Remember: it's you who won't accept what Jesus said and Paul penned, it's you who insists on deleting the words and replacing them with very different ones. MY position is that Jesus and Paul tell the truth. What they actually SAID is TRUE. You are the one with the problem with that.




.

What do you think of John 6:60?
Why did some disciples abandon Jesus?
What was a difficult statement to listen to?

And what does the word "eat" mean in Greek in
John 6:54?

 

[GodsGrace]

Again - I don't know why you're be so evasive.

Bread ISN'T flesh. If Jesus held a hunk of bread in His hands and said it was His flesh - then, at SOME point, it changed from simply being bread - even thought that offends you. Nothing to do with "Alchemy" or "Aristotle". Just the plain truth that the substance in His hands became His flesh. It transubstantiated.

As for your gobbldygook above in RED - I don't know why you deny that Jesus had two natures - but this is a Scriptural truth.

Yours is an appalling lack of faith. People like YOU can believe that God merely SPOKE - and the universe leapt into existence. BUT - you cannot believe that He can change bread into His flesh.

There is debate about this...but I don't believe the bread and wine changed at the Lord's supper. The mass was instituted here, it was not the first Mass however.
What say you?

 

[Philip James]

So your insistence that "is" mandates some CHANGE from one reality to another is wrong, isn't it? Or else the doctrine of the Two natures of Christ is wrong. Either what is present ucan be TWO different things - equally at the same time (as in Christ humanity AND divinity) or one must become the other...

Are you suggesting the Eucharist IS bread AND Jesus? Are you saying that Jesus has 3 natures, divine, human and bread?

If Jesus takes bread and says This is my Body, then it is no longer bread , but the Living Bread, Christ Himself.

I believe the Orthodox also rejected the Lutheran view of the Eucharist and did so with language that paralleled the Latin church... 'transformed' was the term i believe Jeremias II used...

Peace!

 

[Josiah]

To Philip James

Are you suggesting the Eucharist IS bread AND Jesus? Are you saying that Jesus has 3 natures, divine, human and bread?

No. I'm not "suggesting" anything whatsoever, I'm just affirming and believing what Jesus said and Paul penned, disagreeing that they erred (or at least made some VERY bad word choices).

I hold that the meaning of "is" is "is". And that the meaning of "body" is "body." And the meaning of "bread" is "bread." And the meaning of "blood" is "blood." And that the meaning of "cup/wine" is "cup/wine." And that the meaning of "forgiveness" is "forgiveness." So, what Gifts are being given? Body, Blood, bread, wine... for the forgiveness of your sin.

HOW this can be is mystery - just as HOW the Trinity can be is mystery, HOW Jesus is both fully God and man is mystery.... indeed, most orthodox theology is mystery.... we are told to be "stewards of the mysteries of God" rather than, "correct God by making it make sense where God doesn't seem to."

If Jesus takes bread and says This is my Body, then it is no longer bread , but the Living Bread, Christ Himself.

I disagree. And that's not what either Jesus or Paul said.

No more than when Peter says to Jesus, "You are my Lord and my God." That proclamation does NOT mandate that at this utterance, what Jesus was ceased and an alchemic transubstantiation change happens, leaving a mixture of a different reality and Aristotelian Accidents. It only means that Jesus is God, it doesn't mandate that ergo at the utterance of these words, He ceases to be man but we only have Aristotelian accidents of a human left over after the alchemic transubstanitation performed by the utterance of Peter.




To GodsGrace,

What do you think of John 6:60?

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).



See post # 1.




.

 

[BreadOfLife]

There is debate about this...but I don't believe the bread and wine changed at the Lord's supper. The mass was instituted here, it was not the first Mass however.
What say you?

I say that is incorrect. This WAS the first Mass.

As for the Real Presence - if you don't believe in it, that's up to you.
If you DO believe in it - then a change HAS to occur during the consecration - and it has nothing to do with Josiah's obsession with "alchemy" or Aristotle . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

See post 164 and 168.

I'm agreeing with Jesus and Paul. And I don't agree that Jesus and Paul are being evasive.

MY position is that they are being truthful, they are telling the truth, they are not lying or misleading or misspeaking. MY position is they did NOT mean something radically different than what they said/penned. MY position is that they said "IS" and I think they meant that and did not lie. I think the meaning of "is" is "is." That's not being evasive, it's simply agreeing with Jesus and Paul. Holding they told the truth and that they are correct.

You have offered NOTHING to indicate they misspoke and erred and that they SHOULD have said instead, "there was a fundamental physical CHANGE 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 mere Aristotelian Accidents." In fact, you have proven that Jesus and Paul stated MY position (see the opening post, post #1, position #1) and said NOTHING WHATSOEVER about this weird medieval invention of Catholic Scholasticism.

Get out a dictionary. ANY dictionary. Look up the word "is." Look for a definition that is "become".

Then just try READING the text. You know, actually get out a Bible. A Catholic tome is just fine (no problem). Open it. Actually open the book. Look up these Eucharistic texts. And READ THE WORDS. Just read them. Any word you don't understand, get out that dictionary and look it up. I think this will be a huge epiphany for you.

Then, while you have your Bible open (I assume you have one), UNDERLINE each of the following words: "change" "become" "from" "into" "to" "alchemy" "transubstantiation" "not" "seems" "like" "Aristotle" "Accidents" "appearance" Underline every time those words appear in the eucharistic texts of your Bible (feel free to use a Catholic Bible). Got it? How many times was each word stated? Got it?

Now, with that same Catholic Bible, UNDERLINE each of the following words "is" "body" "blood" "bread" "wine" "forgiveness." Done? Got it? How many times did you underline each word?

Now, what did Jesus say and Paul pen? I'm NOT asking what the individual RC denomination said after 1215, I'm asking what does Jesus say? What did Paul pen?

I agree. Because the meaning of is typically is is, not CHANGED. So your insistence that "is" mandates some CHANGE from one reality to another is wrong, isn't it? Or else the doctrine of the Two natures of Christ is wrong. Either what is present can be TWO different things - equally at the same time (as in Christ humanity AND divinity) or one must become the other.... does "is" mean "is" or "become" "change" "from/to"? And if the verb "to be" mandates a one thing becoming something different, MUST that be via the precise, technical, physcial mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation and MUST there be a reality AND an Aristotelian Accident - a "mere appearance?"

I believe God CAN but nowhere does it say He did.

There is no text that remotely states anything changed. IF you actually read the words (and if you believed them) you'd see the word is "IS" - not "changed" or "become" and certainly not "alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and accidents." Remember: it's you who won't accept what Jesus said and Paul penned, it's you who insists on deleting the words and replacing them with very different ones. MY position is that Jesus and Paul tell the truth. What they actually SAID is TRUE. You are the one with the problem with that..

This is one of the most moronic conversations I've ever had on this forum.
YOU claim that you accept the Real Presence.
You ALSO claim that Jesus held up a hunk of bread at the Last Supper.
HOWEVER, you say that the bread didn't change - even though Jesus said that it was His flesh.

You have TWO options here:
Either Jesus was a gingerbread man and what He was holding up was actually part of his gingerbread body.
OR
Jesus picked up a piece of bread that was NOW His flesh.

The ONLY other option is that Jesus was a liar and was playing a joke on the Apostles . . .

 

[GodsGrace]

I say that is incorrect. This WAS the first Mass.

As for the Real Presence - if you don't believe in it, that's up to you.
If you DO believe in it - then a change HAS to occur during the consecration - and it has nothing to do with Josiah's obsession with "alchemy" or Aristotle . . .

Some mighty say the first Mass was at the home of one of the disciples in The Road To Emmaus; when Jesus broke the bread. It's not very important...

Even Luther believed in the real presence... I haven't read Josiah's posts, but alchemy has nothing to do with the change.

 

[Josiah]

To BreadofLife

YOU claim that you accept the Real Presence.

See post #1. See position #1. It's called "Real Presence." It IS my position. It accepts what Jesus said and Paul penned, embracing such as true.

HOWEVER, you say that the bread didn't change - even though Jesus said that it was His flesh.

What verb did He use? "IS" or "CHANGED via the precise technical, physical process of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents?

Get out any dictionary. Look up the definition of "IS". It means is. Present. Existing. Real. Actual. You won't find a dictionary that gives as a definition (even a rare one), "CHANGED from one reality to a different one via the precise mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristelian Accidents." The texts say "IS' 'BODY' 'BLOOD' BREAD' 'WINE' 'FORGIVENESS." What do they NEVER say? "change" "become" "was" "from" "to" "seems" "not" "alchemy" "transubstantiation" "Aristotle" "accidents" "appearance" "mere"

The ONLY other option is that Jesus was a liar and was playing a joke on the Apostles . . .

No. Because He didn't say "change" "become" "was" "from" "to" "seems" "not" "alchemy" "transubstantiation" "Aristotle" "accidents" "appearance" "mere" He said "IS" and so it is. He said "IS' 'BODY' 'BLOOD' BREAD' 'WINE' 'FORGIVENESS." And He was not lying. So no He wasn't playing a trick. He'd be playing a trick if He said "IS" but really it was "CHANGED from one reality to a foreign one via the precise, technical, physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accienets" - THEN He'd be tricking everyone, but He didn't.




To GodsGrace -

Luther believed in the real presence.

Yes, but not the 1551 Eucharistic Dogma of the singular RCC.... that of Transubstantiation.




.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Some mighty say the first Mass was at the home of one of the disciples in The Road To Emmaus; when Jesus broke the bread. It's not very important...

I would say that this was might have been the second Mass . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

To BreadofLife
See post #1. See position #1. It's called "Real Presence." It IS my position. It accepts what Jesus said and Paul penned, embracing such as true.

What verb did He use? "IS" or "CHANGED via the precise technical, physical process of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents?

Get out any dictionary. Look up the definition of "IS". It means is. Present. Existing. Real. Actual. You won't find a dictionary that gives as a definition (even a rare one), "CHANGED from one reality to a different one via the precise mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristelian Accidents." The texts say "IS' 'BODY' 'BLOOD' BREAD' 'WINE' 'FORGIVENESS." What do they NEVER say? "change" "become" "was" "from" "to" "seems" "not" "alchemy" "transubstantiation" "Aristotle" "accidents" "appearance" "mere"

No. Because He didn't say "change" "become" "was" "from" "to" "seems" "not" "alchemy" "transubstantiation" "Aristotle" "accidents" "appearance" "mere" He said "IS" and so it is. He said "IS' 'BODY' 'BLOOD' BREAD' 'WINE' 'FORGIVENESS." And He was not lying. So no He wasn't playing a trick. He'd be playing a trick if He said "IS" but really it was "CHANGED from one reality to a foreign one via the precise, technical, physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accienets" - THEN He'd be tricking everyone, but He didn't.

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.

If I mix flour and eggs and sugar and other ingredients in a bowl - I don't have to declare that it will "change" into a cake once it's baked. It is a given that it becomes a cake. HOWEVER, if I held up a piece of paper and declared that it was now cake - unless I had the power to CHANGE it into cake - I am just another LIAR.

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."

You have a very childish understanding of Transubstantiation - AND the unlimited power of God . . .