It's Just Too Good to be True

  • Thread starter Thread starter Delphinus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thats actually an old one. Early Christians were accused of being cannibals for eating Jesuss flesh.
The answer is simple, we dont drink physical blood nor flesh so this cannot be true.
The devil is in the modern meaning of “physical” which is quite different from what the ancients understood by that concept.

Alternatively there is what Paul VI said in Mysterium Fidei
Christ “is present whole and entire in His physical ‘reality,’ corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.”
Click to expand...
But you will likely find this impenetrable, especially as I suspect he is using the word ‘physical’ in the ancient Aristotelian philosophical meaning which priests are trained in.
 
Last edited:
It’s become literal flesh and blood under the appearance of bread and wine so we do . Or am I wrong ?
 
I dont know. In what sense are you using the word “literal”.
It clearly cannot be seen as flesh or blood so my meaning of the word literal is not being used and so I am at a loss to understand what is meant sorry.
 
Last edited:
There is no other meaning than that it is really flesh and really blood but In the appearance of bread and wine
 
One must believe in transcendence before any of this makes sense. From a purely human standpoint, it seems nonsensical. We do not worship a man-made god or one limited to our imagination. God is both within, but also infinitely beyond our experience.
 
Any posters I do have it right don’t I we literally consume the real body and blood ?
 
Doesnt sound like use of the modern word “literal” to me but if you are satisfied you have answered your own question convincingly all is good. Unfortunately you may also have to accept the charge of “literal cannibalism” if it isnt physical cannibalism ☺️.
 
Last edited:
No I am not interested in my own question being right I am checking I am following the truth as I thought was right in the Church I have joined. It’s either the literal body and blood or it’s not
 
halogirl said:
It’s either the literal body and blood or it’s not
Click to expand...
It is you who say it.
I find language and its meanings over time changable and ambiguous and various shades of grey myself.
 
Last edited:
No sorry. I believe the documents of the accusers do not exist. But various apologists stated these charges were often made. I cannot recall which apologists though.
 
Please define the word physical as you use it.
Then how you think the philosophically trained writer of the official text used it?
I believe you will find inconsistencies if you are not well trained in Aristotle.
 
Last edited:
Sophie your profile says you are catholic. You must surely believe the doctrine ?
 
Salmonslayer said:
Your pseudo intellectual bs is getting old.
Click to expand...
Then equally I politely observe you have an anti academic streak…and likely for the usual reasons.

That is unfortunate because without what you call bs philosophic training you will never get “under the hood” of these highly philosophic articulations from highly academic theologians, Councils and Pontiffs.
You will only think you do.

Nothing more I can say if you bridle at engaging in the polite, reasonable, and essential, questions I put to you.
God bless.
 
Last edited:
If you believe otherwise I must observe you may not understand the dissonance I have been trying to lead you to at least see regardless of whether or not you agree.
Nevermind, this is the fruit of 50 faithful years and an academic training to match. Just ignore me if none of it makes sense to you.
 
Last edited:
Salmonslayer said:
I’m not anti intellectual.
Click to expand...
Clearly appearing so re Aristotelian philosophy or Physics…for if you had serious training most such Catholic academics would confidently relish the opportunity to agreeably discuss the dissonances.

But no, you do the authoritative, defensive ad hominem “bs” implied heresy demonising thing.

This is not a Christian or a polite atmosphere in which to have an enjoyable and productive discussion. Which is why I now bow out and wish you a Merry Christmas.
 
Last edited:
Delphinus said:
How would you respond to the objection that the idea of the Judeo-Christian God is just too good to accept? This the concept of a God this loving and this…intimate (Eucharist) with each of us is more likely the result of a collective “wishful thinking” across cultures and thousands of years of social evolution, rather than the fact it’s ACTUALLY true?

Having trouble coming up with a response to that one. oO
Click to expand...
God gives actual grace such that a person can be converted. But since there is free will, the idea of the perfect loving God can be doubted and rejected, so the grace will not be fruitful.

Luke 8
11 “This is the meaning of the parable. The seed is the word of God. 12 Those on the path are the ones who have heard, but the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts that they may not believe and be saved. 13 Those on rocky ground are the ones who, when they hear, receive the word with joy, but they have no root; they believe only for a time and fall away in time of trial. 14 As for the seed that fell among thorns, they are the ones who have heard, but as they go along, they are choked by the anxieties and riches and pleasures of life, and they fail to produce mature fruit. 15 But as for the seed that fell on rich soil, they are the ones who, when they have heard the word, embrace it with a generous and good heart, and bear fruit through perseverance.
Click to expand...
 
I would say that being a Christian after being an Atheist is 1000x more difficult and takes infinitely more diligence and self reflection. Johnny Cash said it best “being a Christian is not for the faint of heart”. Something along those lines anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top