A Tale of Two Eucharists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Socrates4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JustaServant said:
After 750 replies, I’m sure this thread will end someday.
I’m just sick of the e-mail notifications.
j/k
😃 😉
Click to expand...
You can unsubscribe, at the bottom of the e-mail message. I am thinking of doing that, too - this thread is going around in circles. I don’t think “Socrates” is really all that interested in an answer.
 
jmcrae said:
You can unsubscribe, at the bottom of the e-mail message. I am thinking of doing that, too - this thread is going around in circles. I don’t think “Socrates” is really all that interested in an answer.
Click to expand...
Just kidding. It doesn’t really bother me that much. I just now expect to see at least 4 a day in my e-mail box. I haven’t even read it in a while. Not sure how many others do either.
😃
It’s getting like a long Baptist sermon.
😃
 
JustaServant said:
Just kidding. It doesn’t really bother me that much. I just now expect to see at least 4 a day in my e-mail box. I haven’t even read it in a while. Not sure how many others do either.
😃
It’s getting like a long Baptist sermon.
😃
Click to expand...
It’s been a long time since I heard a Baptist sermon; are they really as bad as this? :eek:

😛
 
jmcrae said:
It’s been a long time since I heard a Baptist sermon; are they really as bad as this? :eek:

😛
Click to expand...
Eventully they get up and walk out.
I unsubscribed. It was getting like trying to stop up an anthill. I kill two, and three show up.😃
 
Socrates-- I do wish I could offer you more help than this, but sadly, I think it is truly a matter of faith. I could make the theological arguments regarding why I believe the Eucharist to be the body and blood, sould and divinity of Jesus Christ. And I could also recite all the Protestant arguments as well, having been raised a Methodist. You have already heard pretty much all of them by now. But what it really boiled down to for me is that He revealed Himself to me in the Eucharist.

I can’t really even put it precisely into words. It just so happened one night, after I had long left my Methodist upbringing and all faith in any form of Christianity behind me, that circumstances beyond my control led me to end up sitting in an adoration chapel. And while I was there, a friend insisted we sit and pray for my husband, who was then in ICU with a resistant staph infection in his lungs and fighting for his life. I didn’t want to pray, but chose to sit quietly rather than disrespect my friend’s beliefs.

As I sat there, I gradually came to know He was indeed present in the chapel. Over the next few weeks I came to understand Catholic teaching on the Eucharist and what the adoration chapel was all about. Over this period of time, I spent more and more time sitting quietly there, and my certain knowledge of His presence was cemented little by little. By the time my husband was discharged from the hospital several weeks later, I was enrolled in RCIA.

I can’t explain how I knew it or came by the knowledge. There were no lightening bolts, nor hellfire and brimstone–no angelic messages or crying statues, nor any voices from heaven. But from those first few minutes, I just knew, and the more time I spent there, the more certain I was I knew it.

And so, Socrates, it really is through the gift of faith that we see these things. Perhaps If you ask Him, He will reveal His truths to you.
 
clmowry said:
The best you can hope for from scientific evidence is to see that the science does not disprove the miraculous.

Let’s put our CSI unit on the scene of the resurrection. We give them all of their modern equipment and free access to Christ before and after the resurrection.

They could confirm that Christ was alive. They could confirm that he died on the cross. They could confirm that 3 days later a man with the same DNA was alive.

What they could not tell us is how or why.

Our CSI unit could not “prove” it was a miracle they could only confess that they have no scientific explanation for the facts at hand. (Granted this would “prove it” for me, but I’m easy.)

Even if they were actually in the tomb and witnessed the resurrection itself there are those who would submit to you that they must have been tricked somehow.

In fact I’ve posed precisely this question to some of the atheists on the site before, “If you witnessed the resurrection, then would you believe?”

“No, at that point I would have to question my sanity……”

“Perhaps he had an identical twin that took his place….”

“Perhaps he took a drug that made it appear he was dead….”

Etc. etc.

Closer to the subject at hand would be something like this http://www.zenit.org/article-12933?l=english.

Let us assume we put our CSI unit on site. They inspect the bread and wine, take samples, witness the monks actions and take samples of the flesh and blood.

Now our Atheist friend chimes in again.

“What about slight of hand. The monk obviously inserted the heart tissue without the observers noticing.”

Etc. Etc.

The CSI observer could testify to what they witnessed, but they could not “prove” the miracle.

The miraculous is scientifically “impossible” after all. Isn’t it?

Unfortunately, the Miracle-meter is still waiting in line to be invented with the Christ-meter so the we can validate the presence of the true Substance of the Eucharist.

Chuck
Click to expand...
True, they could not figure out how Jesus rose from the dead, but they could demonstrate irrefutable evidence that He rose from the dead. A heart monitor showing no heartbeat for nearly three days, for example, would be enough to silence any critic that the man was, indeed, dead.

Then there are all the miraculous healings Jesus accomplished. It’s true that they could not show how these miracles were done, but that they were done would take only simple medical examinations. An optometrist examining of the eyes of the man born blind before, and after, Jesus gave him sight, would show, with medical certainty, that eyes that could not possibly see at one moment were seeing the next. It is worth noting that the critics of Jesus rarely denied that he did miracles; they, instead, attributed His miracles to Satanic power.

Then again, consider one of Jesus’ simple miracles–turning water into wine. It’s true that scientist could not determine how He did it, but that He did it would be easy to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. All they would have to do is some basic tests in a lab of samples of the water before it was turned into wine and after. The molecular structure of the wine would have obviously changed.

So, i have to ask again, Chuck, are there any miracles Jesus did that could not be scientifically proven to have taken place, if modern scientists and physicians were present at the time?

🤷
 
steve_b said:
… The number of copies that have survived of anything, is NOT the measure of truth. It’s only a measure that THOSE copies survived.

The one who validates truth and passes on scripture faithfully, is the one who also validates and passes on the ECF’s. You can’t trust one and doubt the second without introducing doubt to both.
Click to expand...
Two questions, Steve:


  1. *]What is the ECF?
    *]Let’s say only one copy of Ignatius’ letter that you quoted is extant. Why would one be just as reliable as more than 24,900 ancient MSS copies of the New Testament?
    Thanks,
    Soc
 
jmcrae said:
You can unsubscribe, at the bottom of the e-mail message. I am thinking of doing that, too - this thread is going around in circles. I don’t think “Socrates” is really all that interested in an answer.
Click to expand...
What answer of yours have i ignored, JM?

😦
 
Debra_C said:
Socrates-- I do wish I could offer you more help than this, but sadly, I think it is truly a matter of faith. I could make the theological arguments regarding why I believe the Eucharist to be the body and blood, sould and divinity of Jesus Christ. And I could also recite all the Protestant arguments as well, having been raised a Methodist. You have already heard pretty much all of them by now. But what it really boiled down to for me is that He revealed Himself to me in the Eucharist.

I can’t really even put it precisely into words. It just so happened one night, after I had long left my Methodist upbringing and all faith in any form of Christianity behind me, that circumstances beyond my control led me to end up sitting in an adoration chapel. And while I was there, a friend insisted we sit and pray for my husband, who was then in ICU with a resistant staph infection in his lungs and fighting for his life. I didn’t want to pray, but chose to sit quietly rather than disrespect my friend’s beliefs.

As I sat there, I gradually came to know He was indeed present in the chapel. Over the next few weeks I came to understand Catholic teaching on the Eucharist and what the adoration chapel was all about. Over this period of time, I spent more and more time sitting quietly there, and my certain knowledge of His presence was cemented little by little. By the time my husband was discharged from the hospital several weeks later, I was enrolled in RCIA.

I can’t explain how I knew it or came by the knowledge. There were no lightening bolts, nor hellfire and brimstone–no angelic messages or crying statues, nor any voices from heaven. But from those first few minutes, I just knew, and the more time I spent there, the more certain I was I knew it.

And so, Socrates, it really is through the gift of faith that we see these things. Perhaps If you ask Him, He will reveal His truths to you.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Debra. I have an aunt Debra. She is an ex-nun.

🙂
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
What answer of yours have i ignored, JM?

😦
Click to expand...
You haven’t; you just keep using them to pop up new questions. You don’t seem to care about the answer to your question; you are wanting to have a never-ending philosophical discussion. Which is fine, but one gets tired of going around the same mulberry bush again and again, after a while.
 
jmcrae said:
You haven’t; you just keep using them to pop up new questions. You don’t seem to care about the answer to your question; you are wanting to have a never-ending philosophical discussion. Which is fine, but one gets tired of going around the same mulberry bush again and again, after a while.
Click to expand...
Which answer have you, JM, given me for which i have shown disdain?

🤷
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
Which answer have you, JM, given me for which i have shown disdain?

🤷
Click to expand...
No, no - you are misunderstanding me.

We are still trying to discern what “substance” is, after more than 700 posts. The question that begins to occur is, “Does this thread have any substance?” 😉

The Eucharist of the Catholic Church is the substantial presence of Jesus Christ, body and blood, soul and divinity, under the appearance of bread and wine. We know this the same way that we know about Heaven - we’ve never seen it, but we know about it because of what we read in the Bible and what we experience spiritually.
 
jmcrae said:
No, no - you are misunderstanding me.

We are still trying to discern what “substance” is, after more than 700 posts. The question that begins to occur is, “Does this thread have any substance?” 😉

The Eucharist of the Catholic Church is the substantial presence of Jesus Christ, body and blood, soul and divinity, under the appearance of bread and wine. We know this the same way that we know about Heaven - we’ve never seen it, but we know about it because of what we read in the Bible and what we experience spiritually.
Click to expand...
Then please tell me, JM, what is the individual substance of the Eucharist?
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
Two questions, Steve:

  1. *]What is the ECF?
Click to expand...

  1. Ooooops!!! ECF’s = Early Church Fathers.
    Soc:

    1. *]Let’s say only one copy of Ignatius’ letter that you quoted is extant. Why would one be just as reliable as more than 24,900 ancient MSS copies of the New Testament?
      Thanks,
      Soc
    Click to expand...

    1. I’m not sure I understand your question.

      For example,

      Paul wrote one letter to the Church of Rome. From THAT letter, many translations into different languages came from the one original letter.

      Ignatius wrote one letter to the Church of Rome. From that many translations into different languages came from the one original letter.

      1000’s of copies then, in multiple languages, come from those original translations of the original letters.
 
Don’t get me wrong. I believe miracles do happen. Those recored in the bible and those happening today.

But, again the miraculous cannot be “proven” scientificly.

All you can do is demonstrate that the scientist don’t currently have an explanation.

They can tell you where there was water now there is wine.

They can tell you that the DNA of a man that appeared dead matches that of a man who is alive.

They can’t , however, “prove” that God made it so.

So unlees you want to define a miracle as that for which there is no scientific explanation, then you can’t “prove” a miracle.

Chuck
Socrates4Jesus said:
So, i have to ask again, Chuck, are there any miracles Jesus did that could not be scientifically proven to have taken place, if modern scientists and physicians were present at the time?

🤷
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top