Prove Transubtantiation and I will convert

[Metaron]

I don’t know why they walk away with the others when they say to Jesus, “this is a hard saying.” But Jesus did not say: “Oh no! Come back fellows. I was only being symbolic! Symbolic!”

We all know that the symbolism theory of Zwingli didn’t pop up until the 1500’s. Why not go along with what Christians have always believed, for 2,000 years?

 

[Metaron]

You do not respect our religion if you believe that it is a superstious one. That being said, why is it superstion to believe the words of the Creator of the universe himself, who became incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ? You know what is superstisious? To believe the words of a religiously confused man named muhamed, who claimed to have visions that cannot be verified and basically adopted aspects of other religions to create a brand new one.

Yeah, Muslim’s “Prophet” had sex with a nine-year-old. He was… a pedophile.

 

[mangy_dog]

Yeah, Muslim’s “Prophet” had sex with a nine-year-old. He was… a pedophile.

Easy Metaron, that’s a little harsh. There are other aspects of our faith which are more efficacious in allowing our Muslim brothers to see the light which is Jesus Christ, true God and man.

 

[Metaron]

Easy Metaron, that’s a little harsh. There are other aspects of our faith which are more efficacious in allowing our Muslim brothers to see the light which is Jesus Christ, true God and man.

Maybe it was a little over the top… but Aisha was 8 years old when married to Muhammed. And 9 years old when the “marriage” was consumated. Yuk! Poor girl…

At any rate, the only reason I am being hard on Parr is because he said our Holy Eucharist was superstition, then snidely states, “I respect your religion.”

Um, no. If you call our Eucharist superstition, you are committing blaspemy. He said it three times in a row.
I just get tired of it.

 

[mangy_dog]

Maybe it was a little over the top… but Aisha was 8 years old when married to Muhammed. And 9 years old when the “marriage” was consumated. Yuk! Poor girl…

At any rate, the only reason I am being hard on Parr is because he said our Holy Eucharist was superstition, then snidely states, “I respect your religion.”

Um, no. If you call our Eucharist superstition, you are committing blaspemy. He said it three times in a row.
I just get tired of it.

I know how you feel. He is somewhat clueless when it comes to the Divinity of Christ.
He also contradicts himself at every turn. Superstition is the 70 virgins waiting for them in “heaven”. Probably more like 1 seventy year old virgin waiting for 'em in heaven, South Dakota.

Sorry…couldn’t resist that one.

 

[tommiatkins]

Why diddnt jesus just say " Look , remember me everytime you eat ok?"

Well because thats not very “Authentic”. In order to flow into a book you need metaphors , thee’s thy’s thou’s and Verilys.
Look at Jo Smiths attempts. Evry few lines he throws in “Exceedingly” and “It came to pass”.

If Jesus wanted people to have a clear message, he would have used clear speech, but look at the parables. I can say here to you forumers " OK guys 'n Gals, your all equal in Gods sight and even if you reject him, if you sign back up to the Club , he’s happy"
Jesus instead of saying this told a parable.The prodigal son. A obscure story where the listener was supposed to figure out the thinly veiled moral for themselves and then get bigged up about it because they managed to work out something that wasnt really rocket science in the first place.

Rule number one, when cobbeling together a religion is NEVER EVER make things clear. I mean…sheesh, Gods direct link to humanity needs to be as muddled as possible and shrouded in metaphor dosnt it!

 

[grandfather]

Why diddnt jesus just say " Look , remember me everytime you eat ok?"

If Jesus wanted people to have a clear message, he would have used clear speech, but look at the parables.

…
I mean…sheesh, Gods direct link to humanity needs to be as muddled as possible and shrouded in metaphor dosnt it!

Jesus speaks in very clear language when He speaks of Himself as the Bread. Thousands of years of history prior to Christ foretold and prefigured Him and the Eucharist, the story of Abraham and Isaac, the Passover lamb, the prophesies of Genesis, on and on.

We need metaphor in religion, because we are speaking of things we have no experience of and can not know. So, “The kingdom of heaven is like unto a housewife who lost a coin, or a farmer who sowed seed, etc.” We hear what it is like.

Here in the physical universe we also use metaphor to explain and describe things, all the time. In fact the most used two words in the English language today, by those under thirty are “its like”. Describe a city to someone who has never been there. Its like New York, in a way, but not exactly, because… Describe what eating alligator tail tastes like. It is like chicken, but a little…

At any rate, your tone, sarcasm and ridicule indicate that your interest in discussion is disingenuous. Discussion with you will be fruitless. You are only looking for someone with whom to argue. This takes a lot of time and that is something we should not waste. Best wishes to you.

 

[Ronald_E]

Jesus never spoke in old english and especially in the king james version which is filled with a hostile tone. Translators tend to reveal their underlying dispositions in their choice of words. By the way in The Passion of The Christ wasn’t Aramaic so amazingly beautiful even though I had no idea what was being said. Old English by comparison seems harsh and rigid. No spirit of love in certain places.

 

[peary]

Jesus never spoke in old english and especially in the king james version which is filled with a hostile tone. Translators tend to reveal their underlying dispositions in their choice of words. By the way in The Passion of The Christ wasn’t Aramaic so amazingly beautiful even though I had no idea what was being said. Old English by comparison seems harsh and rigid. No spirit of love in certain places.

**Were you any better understanding Shakespeare? **

 

[East_and_West]

Why diddnt jesus just say " Look , remember me everytime you eat ok?"

Well because thats not very “Authentic”. In order to flow into a book you need metaphors , thee’s thy’s thou’s and Verilys.
Look at Jo Smiths attempts. Evry few lines he throws in “Exceedingly” and “It came to pass”.

If Jesus wanted people to have a clear message, he would have used clear speech, but look at the parables. I can say here to you forumers " OK guys 'n Gals, your all equal in Gods sight and even if you reject him, if you sign back up to the Club , he’s happy"
Jesus instead of saying this told a parable.The prodigal son. A obscure story where the listener was supposed to figure out the thinly veiled moral for themselves and then get bigged up about it because they managed to work out something that wasnt really rocket science in the first place.

Rule number one, when cobbeling together a religion is NEVER EVER make things clear. I mean…sheesh, Gods direct link to humanity needs to be as muddled as possible and shrouded in metaphor dosnt it!

Uhhh. no. Christ gaves a Church that makes things crystal clear. Not nearlly as muddled as the nonsense atheism brings us.

 

[danonwaveland]

.The prodigal son. A obscure story where the listener was supposed to figure out the thinly veiled moral for themselves

The story of the prodigal son is hardly obscure! The meanings of all the elements of the story were very relevant to His audience of the time and to us today. Returning the ring to the son’s finger; dressing him up in the father’s finest robes; the son wishing for the food of the sows when he was a hired hand; it goes on and on. When one learns the meaning of all these seemingly small elements of the parable, the depth and richness and clarity of the story comes forth. And, yet, without this deep study, the parable is still a wonderful and moving story of the mercy and love of the Father for His children. With prayer, the Holy Spirit will open up new vistas to the parables – as with all Scripture – with repeated readings.

Taste and see the goodness of the Lord!

 

[D317]

Interesting thread, although I’ve not read each entry. I take it that guanophore is now enrolled in RCIA?

 

[Ronald_E]

I understand Shakespeare extremely well with my wife as an interpreter.

 

[po18guy]

Interesting thread, although I’ve not read each entry. I take it that guanophore is now enrolled in RCIA?

Guanophore’s Catholic, and a danged good one at that. He quoted Steadfast, whose church (SDA) teaches virulent anti-Catholicism which they learned from their prophetess Ellen Gould White. Steadfast, without the illumination of the Holy Spirit, will never eat the Body of Christ, or drink His Blood. Pray for him.

Christ’s peace.

 

[peary]

I understand Shakespeare extremely well with my wife as an interpreter.

**Maybe she can help you translate the KJV then **

 

[AlegreFe]

This is a very long thread, and as far as as i can see, the responses have ainly been “Scripture proves transubstantiation, because it says so here”

What we also see is The Bread and wine stays as bread and wine whilst still being magically transformed into Blood and flesh.

Please do not call it “magic.” It’s not magic, it is the Power of the Holy Spirit that comes through the hands of the Priest who is standing in Persona Christi.

2 Corinthians 2:10
10 And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also.
For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing,
for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.

tommiatkins:

I think what the original poster was after is someone spitting out the wafer and the alcohol and having it anylysed for biological content.

This reminds me of the story Steve Ray told us last week when I went to see him with my daughter.
He said that his protestant friend wanted Steve to “puke” the host after receiving Jesus in Holy Communion so that he could prove that it was still bread by seeing that it is a carbohydrate and not a protein. He told Steve that if it was a protein that he would believe that it was Jesus and not bread. Steve told his friend that you cannot see the Divinity of Christ if you took a piece of His flesh and put it under a microscope; so how can you see the Divinity in the host if you put it under a microscope.

 

[po18guy]

Steve Ray

told us last week when I went to see him with my daughter.
He said that his protestant friend wanted Steve to “puke” the host after receiving Jesus in Holy Communion so that he could prove that it was still bread by seeing that it is a carbohydrate and not a protein. He told Steve that if it was a protein that he would believe that it was Jesus and not bread. Steve told his friend that you cannot see the Divinity of Christ if you took a piece of His flesh and put it under a microscope; so how can you see the Divinity in the host if you put it under a microscope.See what doubt, even hostility the evil one has planted. Must they believe in fire only when burned?

 

[Metaron]

Uhhh. no. Christ gaves a Church that makes things crystal clear. Not nearlly as muddled as the nonsense atheism brings us.

Yeah… if atheism is true… what purpose do we have? None. Are there any morals? None, except self-define ones. You live, you die… then nothing… how lame is that?

 

[AlegreFe]

Im agnostic, I dont beleive anything in the Bible is provable and that much of it is demonstrably wrong.

Kyrie Eleison.

tommiatkins:

It appears that some catholics still beleive that the wafer and wine is actually physically transformed into Platelets, Nuetrophills and Plasma, muscle tissue and bones.

What makes you think this?

tommiatkins:

That is provably incorrect, simply by analysing the contents of the mouth.
These days, as transubstantiation becomes harder and harder to swallow in a rational society, a lot of catholics simply use “Blood and Body” as a metaphor. But this is a recent development.

What makes you think this is a recent development?
Have you not read the first few posts after the OP?

tommiatkins:

The original poster asked the members to prove transubstatiation and he will convert.

No he did not. He asked us to prove that the Early Church Fathers believed in the Real Presence. And that is exactly what was done in this thread.

tommiatkins:

The replies have been scriptually based. Noone can prove to him it exists, and yet, it is provable with a simple laboratry test to be 100% false.

It takes faith to believe. It is obvious you have no faith in what God has revealed to us in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. You are in my prayers.

tommiatkins:

Transubstantiation is one of those areas that needs to be “Let slide” like purgotary or Hell or Noah, in order for catholisism to not collapse under a welter of logic and fact.

Not one faithful, devout, knowledgeable Catholic has ever let Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Hell, Noah or any other revelation “slide” as you put it.

The following Scripture passage would describe Jesus talking to you after you let Him know that you do not understand how He could give you His flesh to eat, or that you do not believe a word that He has spoken to you;
64 It is the spirit that quickeneth:
the flesh profiteth nothing.
The words that I have spoken to you,
are spirit and life.
65 But there are some of you
that believe not.
John 6:64-65 Douay-Rheims (John 6:63)

64 "The flesh profiteth nothing"… Dead flesh separated from
the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat
his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to
say, man’s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be
subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit any thing. But it
would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ
(which we receive in the blessed sacarament, with his spirit, that
is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh
had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us,
nor died in the flesh for us.

64 "Are spirit and life"… By proposing to you a heavenly
sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner,
spirit, grace, and life, in its very fountain.

 

[AlegreFe]

…
The original poster wanted proof that transsub existed, and i’m afraid, it’s impossible to prove…and rather easy to prove the opposite.

This is not what Steadfast was asking.

Here is the OP. Just remember that guanophore is not the one who is asking to have anything shown or proven. It is Steadfast doing the asking;

Steadfast;2969415:

If you can show me where the ECF’s taught and believed that the bread and wine were changed into the Body and Blood of Christ such that the bread and wine ceased to exist only the accidents remaining, I will enroll in RCIA today.

This post was taken off another thread where it was off topic.

Mannyfit and Rolltide did just what Steadfast was asking in the first few posts after the OP.

I think Steadfast has a good understanding that Transubstantiation cannot be proven. I think that is why he asked if the ECF taught and believed in the Real Presence then he would sign up for RCIA. I think he was shown and perhaps after that he changed his story. So it appears that he also does not have faith in what God has revealed to us in Scripture AND Tradition.