Communion - Lord's Supper - Eucharist

[BreadOfLife]

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"

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.

Sooooo, you're comparing a lifeless hunk of bread with Christ's 2 indivisible natures??
THAT'S what this is all about??
Time for another theology lesson . . .

Jesus unites to Himself TWO natures:
He is FULLY Man.
He is FULLY God.
These two natures are indivisible (hypostatic).

Jesus is NOT a hunk of bread - nor is He a glass of wine.
HE doesn't have to change into their substance to confect the Eucharist - THEY must change into HIS being.

YOUR blunder during this entire argument has been your false idea that the Catholic Church claims that JESUS changes into bread and wine - not the other way around. It's no WONDER you're so confused . . .


PS - Although they're always good for a laugh - your idiotic repetitions of "Alchemy" and "Aristotlian" haven't gone unnoticed . . .

 

[Josiah]

Sooooo, you're comparing a lifeless hunk of bread with Christ's 2 indivisible natures??

I'm showing your premise that the verb "to be" MANDATES a CHANGE from one reality into a different one is not only absurd and silly - but actually leads to profound heresy.

Jesus unites to Himself TWO natures: He is FULLY Man. He is FULLY God.

Yup. Because the Bible uses the verb "IS". He IS God. He IS man. But according to you, it's unacceptable for two realities to both be equally true and your entire premise and apologetic is that the word "IS" mandates, necessitates, requires a CHANGE - from one reality into an entirely different one, so that it is now FULLY the changed reality (leaving only appearances of the former, "Aristotelian Accidents"). I've simply shown that your whole premise - while obviously absurd and silly - also leads you to heresy.

YOUR blunder during this entire argument has been your false idea that the Catholic Church claims that JESUS changes into bread and wine - not the other way around.

Proof you'd not read anything posted to you....

I've NEVER REMOTELY indicated such. The 1551 dogma of your singular, individual denomination is that the bread and wine CHANGE INTO the Body and Blood of Christ via the very technical, physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation (you like to use a new, more generic word "change") leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents (you like to use a new, more generic words "mere appearances of").

Your denomination's blunder in 1551 was rejecting what Jesus said and Paul penned: 'IS' 'BODY' 'BLOOD' 'BREAD' 'WINE' 'FORGIVENESS.' Doubting, rejecting, deleting that. And substituting a word never once found in ANY eucharistic text (even if you include John 6), "CHANGED" - and then dogmatizing a very, very specific kind of change, that of alchemy (using the very technical, rare word of alchemy "transubstantiation' rather than any one of a number of Latin words that just mean some generic 'change')... then denying every time Jesus and Paul say "bread" and "wine" after the Consecration and insisting nope, they CANNOT be there if a real alchemic transubstantiation happens so they are just Aristotelian Accidents. By insisting that "is" doesn't mean "is" and that what follows the "is" isn't necessarily, the RC denomination destroyed any textual reason to accept Real Presence. Your blunder is even bigger, your insistence that the verb "to be" MANDATES just such an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents forces you into gross heresy - or an admission that your premise is wrong.




.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I'm showing your premise that the verb "to be" MANDATES a CHANGE from one reality into a different one is not only absurd and silly - but actually leads to profound heresy.

Yup. Because the Bible uses the verb "IS". He IS God. He IS man. But according to you, it's unacceptable for two realities to both be equally true and your entire premise and apologetic is that the word "IS" mandates, necessitates, requires a CHANGE - from one reality into an entirely different one, so that it is now FULLY the changed reality (leaving only appearances of the former, "Aristotelian Accidents"). I've simply shown that your whole premise - while obviously absurd and silly - also leads you to heresy.

Proof you'd not read anything posted to you....

I've NEVER REMOTELY indicated such. The 1551 dogma of your singular, individual denomination is that the bread and wine CHANGE INTO the Body and Blood of Christ via the very technical, physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation (you like to use a new, more generic word "change") leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents (you like to use a new, more generic words "mere appearances of").

Your denomination's blunder in 1551 was rejecting what Jesus said and Paul penned: 'IS' 'BODY' 'BLOOD' 'BREAD' 'WINE' 'FORGIVENESS.' Doubting, rejecting, deleting that. And substituting a word never once found in ANY eucharistic text (even if you include John 6), "CHANGED" - and then dogmatizing a very, very specific kind of change, that of alchemy (using the very technical, rare word of alchemy "transubstantiation' rather than any one of a number of Latin words that just mean some generic 'change')... then denying every time Jesus and Paul say "bread" and "wine" after the Consecration and insisting nope, they CANNOT be there if a real alchemic transubstantiation happens so they are just Aristotelian Accidents. By insisting that "is" doesn't mean "is" and that what follows the "is" isn't necessarily, the RC denomination destroyed any textual reason to accept Real Presence. Your blunder is even bigger, your insistence that the verb "to be" MANDATES just such an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents forces you into gross heresy - or an admission that your premise is wrong..

And now you're lying - again.

In your last post - YOU made the following comment regarding Transubstantiation:
"Then Jesus can't be God without His flesh changing from humanity to divinity."

This is either a lie - or it's a really idiotic statement. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Transubstantiation.
To be God - Jesus doesn't have to "change" because He is ALREADY God.
To be Man - Jesus doesn't have to "change" because He is ALREADY Man.
For a hunk of bread to "be" His actual Flesh - the bread has to change - He doesn't.

Not that complicated, my ignorant friend. Nothing to do with "alchemy" or "Aristotle" - or any other person. Just another miracle from Almighty God that YOU can't seem to accept . . .

My questions to Scriptural absolutists like yourself usually go unanswered:
WHY do you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, when it is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture??
WHY do you believe in the doctrine of the Incarnation, when it is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture??
WHY do you believe in the doctrine of the Sola Scriptura, when it is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture??
WHY do you believe in the doctrine of the Sola Fide, when it is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture??

As to your phony date of 1551 - I've already proven you wrong about that because the term "Transubstantiation" was already being used some 500 years PRIOR to the official definition.

As for your insistence in using the words "alchecmi(ic)" and "Aristotle(ian)" - please show me where either of these words is written in the official definition of Transubstantiation . . .

 

[Josiah]

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Transubstantiation.

It has EVERYTHING to do with your absurd, silly premise: that the meaning of "is" must be "CHANGED from one reality to a completely different reality." Your whole premise is that the meaning of "is" is "change" and that the verb "requires" that such a change happens.

I simply have pointed out that this is not only an absurd, silly, laughable and obviously WRONG premise, but it leads you to very fundamental heresy. The Apostle said, "You ARE (same verb!) the Christ, the son of the living God - and so we believe Jesus IS. But of course, that does NOT mean that at the utterance of that verb, Jesus ceases to be a man and is wholly converted into God who that NOW He is fully God but only has the mere appearance or "Aristotelian Accident" of a man.

I believe Jesus and Paul said what they meant and meant what they said and told the truth - which I accept. "IS" means "is" (it has to do with reality, being present, existing). The meaning of "is" is NOT "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 mere Aristotelian Accidents." Get out a dictionary. Look up the words "IS" and "BODY" and "BLOOD" and "BREAD" and "WINE" and "FORGIVENESS." That's what the text says. Either you believe what they SAID or you don't. Clearly, you don't which is why you have been fighting me, ridiculing me, mocking me for pages now - I'm saying accept what they said and BELIEVE, you mock that.




.

 

[BreadOfLife]

It has EVERYTHING to do with your absurd, silly premise: that the meaning of "is" must be "CHANGED from one reality to a completely different reality." Your whole premise is that the meaning of "is" is "change" and that the verb "requires" that such a change happens.

I simply have pointed out that this is not only an absurd, silly, laughable and obviously WRONG premise, but it leads you to very fundamental heresy. The Apostle said, "You ARE (same verb!) the Christ, the son of the living God - and so we believe Jesus IS. But of course, that does NOT mean that at the utterance of that verb, Jesus ceases to be a man and is wholly converted into God who that NOW He is fully God but only has the mere appearance or "Aristotelian Accident" of a man.

I believe Jesus and Paul said what they meant and meant what they said and told the truth - which I accept. "IS" means "is" (it has to do with reality, being present, existing). The meaning of "is" is NOT "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 mere Aristotelian Accidents." Get out a dictionary. Look up the words "IS" and "BODY" and "BLOOD" and "BREAD" and "WINE" and "FORGIVENESS." That's what the text says. Either you believe what they SAID or you don't. Clearly, you don't which is why you have been fighting me, ridiculing me, mocking me for pages now - I'm saying accept what they said and BELIEVE, you mock that..

Hmmmmm, I'll try to dumb this down for you so you will understand.
Jesus said, "I AM the door" (John 10:9).
Is Jesus a "door" - or is He a Person??

He also said, "I AM the true vine" (John 15:5).
Is Jesus a "vine" - or is He a Person??

You are a Scriptural absolutist who can't even substantiate Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide - let alone the aforementioned verses - yet you ridicule the doctrine of Transubstantiation because the words "Transubstantiation" and "change" aren't explicitly mentioned in Scripture.

Your hypocrisy is ASTOUNDING . . .

 

[Josiah]

yet you ridicule the doctrine of Transubstantiation because the words "Transubstantiation" and "change" aren't explicitly mentioned in Scripture.

'

For PAGES, you have been ridiculing me for accepting and believing what Jesus said and Paul penned: IS.... BODY.... BLOOD..... BREAD.... WINE.... FORGIVENESS.

The Dogma of Transubstantiation holds that "is" should be "changed via the precise, technical, physical process of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and mere Aristotelian accidents." I hold that "is" should not be replaced and need not be replaced, that we should accept what Jesus said - and believe. Your Catholic stance is that must be mocked, ridiculed, denied.

I stand with what Jesus said, what Paul penned, with what Scripture says. You mock that position - ridiculing it, denying it, disbelieving. I'm upholding what the Bible says, what Jesus said, what Paul wrote - you mock it, disbelieve it, insist OTHER words should have been used and it's OTHER words you believe.

And your attempts to bring up allegorical uses of the verb "to be" doesn't help your case since in NONE of those cases does the verb "to be" mean "CHANGED from one reality into another one via the precise, technical, physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian accidents." You keep proving your whole premise - that "to be" MUST mean "to change from one reality to a mixture of a different reality and Aristotelian accidents" - doesn't hold up, you can't come up with even one verse where that's the case. Look up the verb in your dictionary - it would be an epiphany for you.



.

 

[BreadOfLife]

For PAGES, you have been ridiculing me for accepting and believing what Jesus said and Paul penned: IS.... BODY.... BLOOD..... BREAD.... WINE.... FORGIVENESS.

The Dogma of Transubstantiation holds that "is" should be "changed via the precise, technical, physical process of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and mere Aristotelian accidents." I hold that "is" should not be replaced and need not be replaced, that we should accept what Jesus said - and believe. Your Catholic stance is that must be mocked, ridiculed, denied.

I stand with what Jesus said, what Paul penned, with what Scripture says. You mock that position - ridiculing it, denying it, disbelieving. I'm upholding what the Bible says, what Jesus said, what Paul wrote - you mock it, disbelieve it, insist OTHER words should have been used and it's OTHER words you believe.

And your attempts to bring up allegorical uses of the verb "to be" doesn't help your case since in NONE of those cases does the verb "to be" mean "CHANGED from one reality into another one via the precise, technical, physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian accidents." You keep proving your whole premise - that "to be" MUST mean "to change from one reality to a mixture of a different reality and Aristotelian accidents" - doesn't hold up, you can't come up with even one verse where that's the case. Look up the verb in your dictionary - it would be an epiphany for you.

Yes - this HAS been going on for pages because you keep ignoring the things I have taught you.
You completely ignored my last post and, instead, cherry-picked ONE sentence to respond to.

Now - as a Scriptural absolutist - explain the following which you ignored the last time around . . .
Jesus said, "I AM the door" (John 10:9).
Is Jesus a "door" - or is He a Person??

He also said, "I AM the true vine" (John 15:5).
Is Jesus a "vine" - or is He a Person??

According to YOUR logic - Jesus IS a door with hinges and a knob - but He is ALSO a vine, which means He lied to us . . .

 

[Josiah]

Yes - this HAS been going on for pages because you keep ignoring the things I have taught you.
You completely ignored my last post and, instead, cherry-picked ONE sentence to respond to.

Now - as a Scriptural absolutist - explain the following which you ignored the last time around . . .
Jesus said, "I AM the door" (John 10:9).
Is Jesus a "door" - or is He a Person??

He also said, "I AM the true vine" (John 15:5).
Is Jesus a "vine" - or is He a Person??

According to YOUR logic - Jesus IS a door with hinges and a knob - but He is ALSO a vine, which means He lied to us . . .

Again, your switching to the few times when the verb "to be" is used metaphorically does NOTHING to support your silly premise. Even here, the verb does NOT mandate some physical CHANGE from one reality fully into some different, foreign reality (via the specific process of an alchemic transubstantiation or otherwise) and does NOT mandate that there are also (mixed together with the new, different reality) some Aristotelian Accidents.

You keep proving my point: Your premise is silly and absurd - and obviously, undeniably WRONG. And as you've also repeatedly proven, leads to horrible heresies.

Get out a dictionary (any will do, even a Roman Catholic one) and look up the following words: IS, BODY, BLOOD, BREAD, WINE, FORGIVENESS (it's not rocket science). You will NOT find a defintion of "is" which states, "fully CHANGED from one reality into a different reality via the precise, technical, physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and mere Aristotelian Accidents." You won't find that definition even in a Catholic dictionary.

Now, get out a Bible. A Catholic one will do just fine. Look up all the Eucharistic texts (you may include John 6 if you like). UNDERLINE all the following words: CHANGE, FROM, INTO, ALCHEMY, TRANSUBSTANTIATION, NOT, SEEMS, APPEARANCE, MERE, ARISTOTLE, ACCIDENTS. Got it? How many times did you underline each of those words?

Now do the same with the following: IS, BODY, BLOOD, BREAD, WINE, FORGIVENESS. Got it? how many times did you underline each word?

NOW, whose position is that of what Jesus and Paul and John said/wrote? The RCC's declaration of 1551 or my position that you ridicule, mock, denounce, deny and disbelieve?



.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Again, your switching to the few times when the verb "to be" is used metaphorically does NOTHING to support your silly premise. Even here, the verb does NOT mandate some physical CHANGE from one reality fully into some different, foreign reality (via the specific process of an alchemic transubstantiation or otherwise) and does NOT mandate that there are also (mixed together with the new, different reality) some Aristotelian Accidents.

You keep proving my point: Your premise is silly and absurd - and obviously, undeniably WRONG. And as you've also repeatedly proven, leads to horrible heresies.

Get out a dictionary (any will do, even a Roman Catholic one) and look up the following words: IS, BODY, BLOOD, BREAD, WINE, FORGIVENESS (it's not rocket science). You will NOT find a defintion of "is" which states, "fully CHANGED from one reality into a different reality via the precise, technical, physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and mere Aristotelian Accidents." You won't find that definition even in a Catholic dictionary.

Now, get out a Bible. A Catholic one will do just fine. Look up all the Eucharistic texts (you may include John 6 if you like). UNDERLINE all the following words: CHANGE, FROM, INTO, ALCHEMY, TRANSUBSTANTIATION, NOT, SEEMS, APPEARANCE, MERE, ARISTOTLE, ACCIDENTS. Got it? How many times did you underline each of those words?

Now do the same with the following: IS, BODY, BLOOD, BREAD, WINE, FORGIVENESS. Got it? how many times did you underline each word?

NOW, whose position is that of what Jesus and Paul and John said/wrote? The RCC's declaration of 1551 or my position that you ridicule, mock, denounce, deny and disbelieve?

Really?

Can you PROVE to me that Jesus was only speaking "metaphorically" in John 10:9 and John 15:5 - but NOT in Luke 22:19 when He, according to YOU - claimed that a hunk of bread was actually His flesh??

When you can DO that - you MIGHT have a case that Jesus was actually a Gingerbread Man.
UNTIL then, however - it's just another stupid anti-Catholic invention. . .

 

[Josiah]

Really?

Can you PROVE to me that Jesus was only speaking "metaphorically" in John 10:9 and John 15:5 - but NOT in Luke 22:19 when He, according to YOU - claimed that a hunk of bread was actually His flesh??

When you can DO that - you MIGHT have a case that Jesus was actually a Gingerbread Man.
UNTIL then, however - it's just another stupid anti-Catholic invention. . .

1. I don't claim that Jesus is the "Gingerbread man." No one does.

2. I don't claim that Jesus is speaking "metaphorically" in the Eucharistic texts. Remember: I'M the one fully accepting and believing every exact word Jesus said and Paul penned... YOU are the one insisting they should have said/written different words, YOU are the one denying and disbelieving.

3. MY stance is that the meaning of "is" is "is." It's the RCC dogmatically insisting in 1551 that the meaning of "is" is "CHANGED from one reality to an entirely different/foreign reality leaving behind a mixture of reality and mere Aristotelian Accidents" (you like to say "mere appearances"). Your problem is that while you are trying to defend that definition of the verb "to be" you just keep doing the opposite - you can't find ANYWHERE in the Bible where the verb means that, you can't find ANY dictionary that gives that meaning. The RCC just made it up - and applied it NOWHERE else but in these Eucharistic texts, just to get around the word "IS" and to deny half of what follows the "is." It prefers the alchemic idea of transubstantiation and Aristotle's silly, absurd theory of accidents to what Jesus actually said and Paul verbatim wrote.

4. MY position that you ridicule, mock, and denounce is what Jesus said and Paul penned: IS, BODY, BLOOD, BREAD, WINE, FORGIVENESS. You claim you believe Jesus but you repudiate, mock, ridicule and denounce what He said every time I repeat it and quote Him. It's undeniable and obvious which of us is agreeing with the words Jesus said and Paul penned, which is believing..... and which is denouncing it.



.

 

[BreadOfLife]

1. I don't claim that Jesus is the "Gingerbread man." No one does.

2. I don't claim that Jesus is speaking "metaphorically" in the Eucharistic texts. Remember: I'M the one fully accepting and believing every exact word Jesus said and Paul penned... YOU are the one insisting they should have said/written different words, YOU are the one denying and disbelieving.

3. MY stance is that the meaning of "is" is "is." It's the RCC dogmatically insisting in 1551 that the meaning of "is" is "CHANGED from one reality to an entirely different/foreign reality leaving behind a mixture of reality and mere Aristotelian Accidents" (you like to say "mere appearances"). Your problem is that while you are trying to defend that definition of the verb "to be" you just keep doing the opposite - you can't find ANYWHERE in the Bible where the verb means that, you can't find ANY dictionary that gives that meaning. The RCC just made it up - and applied it NOWHERE else but in these Eucharistic texts, just to get around the word "IS" and to deny half of what follows the "is." It prefers the alchemic idea of transubstantiation and Aristotle's silly, absurd theory of accidents to what Jesus actually said and Paul verbatim wrote.

4. MY position that you ridicule, mock, and denounce is what Jesus said and Paul penned: IS, BODY, BLOOD, BREAD, WINE, FORGIVENESS. You claim you believe Jesus but you repudiate, mock, ridicule and denounce what He said every time I repeat it and quote Him. It's undeniable and obvious which of us is agreeing with the words Jesus said and Paul penned, which is believing..... and which is denouncing it.

No - you're trying to have the Real Presence without there being a change - which makes NO sense unless Jesus was a Gingerbread Man as YOU argue yet are trying to deny.

Go to your kitchen and pull out a piece of bread. Now - call it something else.
Notice that it is STILL bread.

Unless there is a miraculous change - it cannot be flesh. And guess what?? God does it without and "magic" or "alchemy" or "Aristotle" or the boogeyman" or anybody else. YOU'RE the only one who thinks those things are necessary.

Your argument is stupid - but you're the only one who doesn't recognize this . . .