Ironic Thing about Intelligent Design Protestant Believers

[JPUSC]

Isn’t it a bit ironic that some Protestants who believe in intelligent design, the omnipotence of God and the literal interpretation of Scripture think the idea of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is ridiculous?

If God, with His unlimited power and authority made everything including the complex and intricate universe we live in, why can’t He do the simple action of turning bread and wine into His Body and Blood? If He’s God, He can do anything, right?

Saying that bread and wine cannot be transformed into Christ’s Body and Blood is limiting the unlimited power of God and is also unbiblical as Christ Himself said, “This is My Body, This is My Blood”.

 

[spoiltvictorian]

I agree. It is similar to gnosticism - matter is evil and flawed, therefore God cannot be in matter, therefore the Bible verses that indicate otherwise must mean something else.

 

[With_Questions]

Saying that bread and wine cannot be transformed into Christ’s Body and Blood is limiting the unlimited power of God and is also unbiblical as Christ Himself said, “This is My Body, This is My Blood”.

There is a difference between “can not” and “is not”.

 

[prodigal-sun]

The reason why most Non Catholic CHristians do not believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist IMHO is “PRIDE”

To admit the it is indeed the truth is to admit the Catholic Church has the entire truth within her.

Pride is powerful in us humans and possibly the greatest of sins.

Peace!

 

[With_Questions]

The reason why most Non Catholic CHristians do not believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist IMHO is “PRIDE”

To admit the it is indeed the truth is to admit the Catholic Church has the entire truth within her.

Pride is powerful in us humans and possibly the greatest of sins.

Peace!

Oh…so now you are God and know the motives of people’s heart?

And this statement is not even sensible since your denomination is not the only one that believes the real presence.

Please use sensible arguments.

 

[prodigal-sun]

Oh…so now you are God and know the motives of people’s heart?

And this statement is not even sensible since your denomination is not the only one that believes the real presence.

Please use sensible arguments.

Ohh sorry to offend you certainly was not my objection.

I do not believe I am God, but I do believe Pride is a factor in this issue.

I did say most and not all NOn catholic Christians. I do not know of any Protestant religion that believes or teaches the truth of the Real presence. Can you give me some examples.

Of couse the Orthodox and other apostolic churches not withstanding.

Peace!

 

[M0nkey]

Well, the idea of the literal interpretation of scripture is ludicrous. The literal interpretation would have to include the correct interpretation as intended by God and formally given to the Church. Drawing up doctrines created by man is no way to stand in the literal interpretation of any scripture.

 

[With_Questions]

I did say most and not all NOn catholic Christians. I do not know of any Protestant religion that believes or teaches the truth of the Real presence. Can you give me some examples.

Lutherans
Anglicans (including Episcopaleans)
Methodists
I think Presbyterians although I am not sure

However it is still not intelligent to post in a forum that is frequented by non Catholics that the definite reason they do not believe in your particular theology is pride. You can only speak for yourself, you can not speak for anybody else. Stop pretending you know motives when you do not.

 

[sandusky]

JPUSC:

Isn’t it a bit ironic that some Protestants who believe in intelligent design, the omnipotence of God and the literal interpretation of Scripture think the idea of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is ridiculous?

If God, with His unlimited power and authority made everything including the complex and intricate universe we live in, why can’t He do the simple action of turning bread and wine into His Body and Blood? If He’s God, He can do anything, right?

Right.

JPUSC:

Saying that bread and wine cannot be transformed into Christ’s Body and Blood is limiting the unlimited power of God and is also unbiblical as Christ Himself said, “This is My Body, This is My Blood”.

Grammatically, this is my body; this is my blood are metaphors.

That the bread and wine are symbols is observed in the definition of a true “metaphor.”

A metaphor is a declaration that one thing is (or represents) another; or, comparison by representation.

Met´-a-phor. Greek, metaphora, a transference, or carrying over or across. From meta, beyond or over, and pherein, to carry.

The figure is a “Representation” or “Transference.” It is recognized by some form of the verb,
***to be.***I am the door

I am the vine; you are the branches

This is my body…this is my blood

All flesh is grass

My flesh is true food

My blood is true drink

We are the sheep of His pasture

The Lord God is a Sun and Shield

His truth is a shield and buckler

You are the salt of the earthAnd so on.

 

[MHalsey]

Lutherans
Anglicans (including Episcopaleans)
Methodists
I think Presbyterians although I am not sure

However it is still not intelligent to post in a forum that is frequented by non Catholics that the definite reason they do not believe in your particular theology is pride. You can only speak for yourself, you can not speak for anybody else. Stop pretending you know motives when you do not.

If you note his post above, he uses the acronym IMHO, which is, In My Honest (or Humble) Opinion. Therefore he was speaking for himself.

 

[East_Anglican]

Intelligent Design is a nonsense philosophy.

Transubstantiation is a nonsense philosophy.

 

[MHalsey]

Right.

Grammatically, this is my body; this is my blood are metaphors.

That the bread and wine are symbols is observed in the definition of a true “metaphor.”

A metaphor is a declaration that one thing is (or represents) another; or, comparison by representation.

Met´-a-phor. Greek, metaphora, a transference, or carrying over or across. From meta, beyond or over, and pherein, to carry.

The figure is a “Representation” or “Transference.” It is recognized by some form of the verb,
***to be.***I am the door

I am the vine; you are the branches

This is my body…this is my blood

All flesh is grass

My flesh is true food

My blood is true drink

We are the sheep of His pasture

The Lord God is a Sun and Shield

His truth is a shield and buckler

You are the salt of the earthAnd so on.

So, where does Jesus say he was speaking metaphorically? I mean, He lost most of His followers when He declared what I have bolded above. Are you telling me He allowed most of His followers to leave simply because they could not understand His “metaphor”? I think this is reaching.

 

[JPUSC]

Grammatically, this is my body; this is my blood are metaphors.

That the bread and wine are symbols is observed in the definition of a true “metaphor.”

Sure, you can personally interpret it as a metaphor, but the Apostles took it literally and the belief has remained for over 2,000 years.

For forty days after the Resurrection, Jesus continued to teach His followers until His Ascension. Now don’t you think He would’ve corrected them about any misunderstandings concerning the Eucharist since he knows the future?

 

[prodigal-sun]

Lutherans
Anglicans (including Episcopaleans)
Methodists
I think Presbyterians although I am not sure

However it is still not intelligent to post in a forum that is frequented by non Catholics that the definite reason they do not believe in your particular theology is pride. You can only speak for yourself, you can not speak for anybody else. Stop pretending you know motives when you do not.

I do not believe any of the above denomoinations teach or agree with the Catholic truth of transubstantiation. Lutherans & Anglicans get points for there beliefs but the whole truth is certainly not theirs.

I don’t understand why you are getting so upset about what I think. I’m allowed opinions, right!

hmmm, I wonder if you have never given an insight into what you believe about Catholics.

Peace!

 

[sandusky]

Sure, you can personally interpret it as a metaphor, but the Apostles took it literally and the belief has remained for over 2,000 years.

For forty days after the Resurrection, Jesus continued to teach His followers until His Ascension. Now don’t you think He would’ve corrected them about any misunderstandings concerning the Eucharist since he knows the future?

Neither the apostles, nor Jesus anywhere teach transubstantiation, or real presence.

That’s why there were varying opinions and no authoritative statement concerning either for 1,100 years.

 

[JPUSC]

The doctrine of the Eucharist has been held from the very earliest days of the Church. For the first 800 years of Christianity, there was no doubt regarding the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Here is a sample of writings from the fathers of the early Church illustrating this.

Paul writing in 1 Cor 10:15-16

“I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?”

Paul writing in 1 Cor 11:23-30

“For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

Ignatius of Antioch, 110 AD

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again… Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Epistle to the Smyreans)

“Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God.” (Epistle to the Philadelphians)

Justin Martyr, 150 AD

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.” (First Apology of Justin)

Irenaeus of Lyons, 190 AD

“Christ has declared the cup… to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies. If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies Book V)

 

[JPUSC]

Neither the apostles, nor Jesus anywhere teach transubstantiation, or real presence.

That’s why there were varying opinions and no authoritative statement concerning either for 1,100 years.

If you are basing that solely on what is written in the Bible, then not everything was written down. The New Testament didn’t even exist in the first few years of Christianity. That is why Tradition and the Magisterium (teaching authority passed down from the first Pope, St. Peter and the Apostles) are equally important to Scripture.

The complex nature of God cannot be summarized in a book.

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book.

But these are written that you may (come to) believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name.

John 20:30​

 

[MHalsey]

Neither the apostles, nor Jesus anywhere teach transubstantiation, or real presence.

That’s why there were varying opinions and no authoritative statement concerning either for 1,100 years.

This sounds like a muslim argument to deny the divinity of Christ. Just because he didn’t teach it emphatically, makes it no less true.

I am beginning to believe much of these arguments stem from the lack of understanding that comes from The Holy Spirit. I mean, even the apostles did not fully understand the life and mission of Christ until the day of Pentecost.

 

[sandusky]

JPUSC:

The doctrine of the Eucharist has been held from the very earliest days of the Church. For the first 800 years of Christianity, there was no doubt regarding the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Here is a sample of writings from the fathers of the early Church illustrating this.

Indeed it was, and there were many, and differing opinions of what “real presence” was, and there was nothing concerning transubstantiation, and there was no definitive or authoritative statement for 1,100 years—everyone had his own opinion—the quotes you offer are all of one opinion only—that held by the church since LC IV.

There was no difinitive teaching by the apostles, or by Christ; had there been, the teaching would have been consistent from their time until now, but it hasn’t been consistent.

 

[prodigal-sun]

Right.

Grammatically, this is my body; this is my blood are metaphors.

That the bread and wine are symbols is observed in the definition of a true “metaphor.”

A metaphor is a declaration that one thing is (or represents) another; or, comparison by representation.

Met´-a-phor. Greek, metaphora, a transference, or carrying over or across. From meta, beyond or over, and pherein, to carry.

The figure is a “Representation” or “Transference.” It is recognized by some form of the verb,
***to be.***I am the door

I am the vine; you are the branches

This is my body…this is my blood

All flesh is grass

My flesh is true food

My blood is true drink

We are the sheep of His pasture

The Lord God is a Sun and Shield

His truth is a shield and buckler

You are the salt of the earthAnd so on.

So what you believe is that Jesus would let all those following him to leave him over the misunderstanding of a metaphor? I think not!

Peace!