D
davidv
Guest
I don’t know.
- Status
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
I admire your honesty, and humility, David. I don’t know was something that Socrates often said to others, and something i should say more.
I think, then, that i should follow your example and say, “I don’t know, either.” I mean, i don’t know how Jesus’ body could not have atoms, but i’m willing to consider the possibility. If it is true that His body has no molecular structure, this would certainly eliminate many difficulties i’m having with apprehending the truth of the Eucharist.
Will you be kind enough to look at the evidence with me, so that you and i together can see whether His body had, and still has atoms?
D
davidv
Guest
No I don’t believe I will. Whether His glorified body is made up of atoms is immaterial to whether He is truely present in the Eucharist.I admire your honesty, and humility, David. I don’t know was something that Socrates often said to others, and something i should say more.
I think, then, should follow your example and say, “I don’t know, either.” I don’t know how Jesus’ body could not have atoms, but i’m willing to consider the possibility.
Will you be kind enough to look at the evidence with me, so that you and i together can see whether His body had, and still has atoms?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Please see the edit to my post, David, and let me know if you change your mind.
Thanks,
Soc
T
toaslan
Guest
Pretty diagram to wake up my eyes along with the morning coffee
God morning, Soc and all!Soc, I guess your A, B, and C above pretty much covers the emphases on this thread so far. The only thing I see missing, and I am NOT proposing we cover it here as, IMHO, there is enough going on, but there is at least a D:
D: What the Catholic Church understands the Holy Spirit to say about A, B and C. (And what She is silent on is open to healthy speculation–which means, as long as speculation does not tend to contradict what is taught.)
Let me express my thanks to you in my turn, Soc, for not losing patience with our substance/accidents track; for being willing to find something there. Submitting what we say to God, being ready to drop like a hot potato anything which turns out to be contrary to Truth, we can be blessed in discourse even about such a relatively non-divine topic as being and categories of such.
Relatively, for as MaryJohnZ points out to us, God is somehow the being of each instance and moment of each created thing. We remember His name, “I AM”: He IS, He is Being, He is ACT.
S
steve_b
Guest
43 “Stop grumbling …,” Jesus answered. [snip] 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. 52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57…the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58…Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.If you answer my questions, Steve, i will not have to make any assumptions:
- Is it the original letter Clement wrote with his own hand, or a copy?
- If it is a copy, are there hundreds just like it, or has only one survived?
- Was the earliest copy made decades after the author was dead, or centuries after his body was cold in the crypt?
If you do not have the answers, that’s OK, but at least try to understand why i have doubts.
**60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” **
61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirite] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.” 66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
T
toaslan
Guest
GEORGEOUS glacier/icebergness!
Soc:
We have the individual substance “water”. The dynamic among the 3 atoms so related is unique to “water” (because God would have it so). *So related * IT (not they) is water. It is water on the essential level because the molecule participates in the substantial form “waterness.” It is water on the accidental level for all measurable attributes are those of water. The molecule is water both essentially and accidentally.
While related to hydrogen in the water bond, is the oxygen atom simultaneously oxgen AND water? Is this atom two disparate things at the same time and in the same respect?
Is that where we are, Soc?
I am glad you find useful what bits I have on offer!
Soc:
If I may take a teeny tad of your glacier, one molecule of water, 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom…
We have the individual substance “water”. The dynamic among the 3 atoms so related is unique to “water” (because God would have it so). *So related * IT (not they) is water. It is water on the essential level because the molecule participates in the substantial form “waterness.” It is water on the accidental level for all measurable attributes are those of water. The molecule is water both essentially and accidentally.
While related to hydrogen in the water bond, is the oxygen atom simultaneously oxgen AND water? Is this atom two disparate things at the same time and in the same respect?
Is that where we are, Soc?
S
steve_b
Guest
At one time it was the original.
Soc:
Do a google search. You can read copies of the letter on tons of sources
Soc:
Okay okay, I see where you’re going.
He walked over to a hermetically sealed safe and put it in there for safe keeping knowing in advance the day would come when Xerox would come up with a nifty way to make beautiful copies, so that Socrates on CAF would ask, is this a copy or is this the original…
Soc:
Soc,If you do not have the answers, that’s OK, but at least try to understand why i have doubts.
Are these doubts, or a lack of trust?
T
toaslan
Guest
Say, Chuck and Soc, I don’t understand something about what you are discussing.
Soc seems to say that all miracles are subject to empirical proof. All but the Eucharist. This would argue that the Eucharist is not a miracle.
Soc:
Sure, the temple curtain was torn, and the skies grew dark. This might be proof of something given biblical prophecy. But proof of man’s redemption?
And since the Eucharist IS that same identical miracle, it seems to be expected that it is no more subject to proof than is the Miracle that By This Flesh We Are Saved.
Incidentally, Soc, I think maybe a particular point could have been more emphasized way back on this thread when posters were trying to explain why otherwise innocuous images/references caused offense as at sacrilege.
You noted that you had not prior been aware that Catholics actually have affection for the Host. That was a good observation. Did anybody note, or did you yourself make the connection? We do love It, the consecrated Host, because It is HE. He comes personally, intimately to us and as divine Food for our souls converts us into Him, unlike natural food which our bodies convert into us. He gave All for us, and lets us enter into Him as part of that All-Giving. Greater love hath no man.
The Eucharist is Jesus–and we mean it literally. So we take the Eucharist personally, just like you take personally any body you love, like your kids, your wife. You take them personally, don’t you? I’m not exaggerating or speaking figuratively: it’s the same with believing Catholics and Our Lord Jesus in Holy Communion
Soc seems to say that all miracles are subject to empirical proof. All but the Eucharist. This would argue that the Eucharist is not a miracle.
Soc:
What about the miracle of man’s salvation? The miracle that mankind is forgiven for Original Sin, the chasm is bridged, and heaven is opened, caused by Christ’s Passion and Death on the Cross. It’s the biggest miracle of all, and we have no empirical, testable evidence for it.
Sure, the temple curtain was torn, and the skies grew dark. This might be proof of something given biblical prophecy. But proof of man’s redemption?
And since the Eucharist IS that same identical miracle, it seems to be expected that it is no more subject to proof than is the Miracle that By This Flesh We Are Saved.
Incidentally, Soc, I think maybe a particular point could have been more emphasized way back on this thread when posters were trying to explain why otherwise innocuous images/references caused offense as at sacrilege.
You noted that you had not prior been aware that Catholics actually have affection for the Host. That was a good observation. Did anybody note, or did you yourself make the connection? We do love It, the consecrated Host, because It is HE. He comes personally, intimately to us and as divine Food for our souls converts us into Him, unlike natural food which our bodies convert into us. He gave All for us, and lets us enter into Him as part of that All-Giving. Greater love hath no man.
The Eucharist is Jesus–and we mean it literally. So we take the Eucharist personally, just like you take personally any body you love, like your kids, your wife. You take them personally, don’t you? I’m not exaggerating or speaking figuratively: it’s the same with believing Catholics and Our Lord Jesus in Holy Communion
C
clmowry
Guest
I’m not sure I’ve seen Soc has yet made that point, but it sure seems to me to be where he’s heading. But, I’ll leave that to him to expound upon.
My position is that “no miracles” are subject to empirical proof, including the miracle of the Eucharist and the others you and Soc have listed.
The best we can expect to prove is that there** was** an observable change in the “material accidents” (is this even a term?) associated with the objects of some miracles.
The presence of a physical change or lack there of, however, can never prove or disprove that a miracle has taken place.
It can only demonstrate that there was a physical change, we cannot determine if it was an action of God or not scientifically.
So even if I can “prove beyond a reasonable doubt” that an unexplained physical event took place, I cannot “prove” that the explanation lies with God.
Chuck
mir·a·cle/ˈmɪrəkəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciationmir-uh-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
*–noun *
1.
an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.
T
toaslan
Guest
I don’t know if it’s a term, but I get the meaning–you are emphasizing in a miracle there is a true change in the accidents, which change is observable/measurable.
I agree, Chuck.
Agreed. We can only determine that there is no explanation at the “scientific” or rather empirical level. Which means there is no natural explanation. So there must be a supernatural reason.
yes, Chuck–your only option would be to accept or reject, but not based on knowledge, based on faith. You would have to accept it on authority…
Thank you, I accept your definition of miracle, Chuck.
Miracle: an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
If i’m understanding you correctly, it appears you are saying, Chuck, that the body of Jesus is more like that of the Holy Spirit than like that of your body or mine. Is this what you are saying, or do you think that the body of Jesus is more similar to yours and less similar to that of the Holy Spirit?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Thank you, ToAslan. Yes, it’s my goal to take a hard look at anything i believe, for i have to agree with Socrates, when he said at his trial, that “the unexamined life is not worth living.” The converse was true, too: The examined life is worth dying for. This was certainly true in his case, and in the case of countless Christian martyrs.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
If you want to change to subject to that of what Jesus said, Steve, i’ll go along with that. What do you think He meant by the passage you quoted?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
LOL! What a trio we make! Me misunderstanding you and you both misunderstanding me. You see, i’m not telling either of you what to think, i’m merely asking questions about what you think.
T
toaslan
Guest
I was just trying to understand what each of you was saying as to the relation of emperical evidence to miracle.LOL! What a trio we make! Me misunderstanding you and you both misunderstanding me. You see, i’m not telling either of you what to think, i’m merely asking questions about what you think.
You see, a non-Catholic last week said to me that all the miracles in the New Testament could be seen to have happened–all but the Eucharist. It was posed to me as an objection to the Eucharist as miracle. Seemed similar to your train of thought, Soc.
My response at the time sprang to the front of my head–that the biggest miracle of all, salvation, cannot be seen to have happened at all. We believe it, but we cannot see it. Nohow.
Sorry, Soc, if I sounded like I think you have an agenda. That’s not quite what I think.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
What about Jesus’ comment to Nichodemus, ToAslan?
3In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”
4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” 5Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
(John 4)
Isn’t this proof of salvation, at least to the one who experiences it?
B
blossom02
Guest
I just saw this in another part of the forums and thought it was very nice. I know it won’t prove a thing, but it is how a catholic feels about the Eucharist.
youtube.com/watch?v=XsS6Yv7l5_I
youtube.com/watch?v=XsS6Yv7l5_I
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
- Status