The Case Against Transubstantiation

[zerinus]

and who is this great part remaining unto the present?

I thought I answered that in the post.

zerinus

 

[wisdomseeker]

I thought I answered that in the post.

zerinus

sorry i guess i missed your post earlier.

 

[dosdog]

They are included. But it is true though that Jesus never manifested Himself personally to the Gentiles converts after His resurrection; but only to the Jewish ones, as described by Paul:
zerinus

Wrong again - Paul was a Gentile - He was a Roman citizen as were both his parents

 

[zerinus]

sorry i guess i missed your post earlier.

Jesus appeared to them before Paul’s own conversion had taken place; which means well before the ministry among the Gentiles had begun.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Wrong again - Paul was a Gentile - He was a Roman citizen as were both his parents

Paul was a Jew, or rather an Isralite, of the tribe of Benjamin. He had acquire Roman citizenship. That did not make him a Gentile.

zerinus

 

[wisdomseeker]

Jesus appeared to them before Paul’s own conversion had taken place; which means well before the ministry among the Gentiles had begun.

zerinus

and exactly how mormons got on the picture?

 

[roguejim]

One way we can know that a cult exists, is by the writings of its enemies. Many books have been written in recent times on the Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, by their enemies.

Not to mention that we cannot find any evidence of Mormonism or the JWs in the ordinary historical record of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th centuries, neither can we find any evidence of them even from their enemies. No writings anywhere.

“Heretics are Antichrists and adversaries of Christ.”
VII COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE

“Heretics are to be classed with thieves and murderers.”
POPE INNOCENT IV

“A Christian should argue with a blasphemer only by running his sword through his bowels as far as it will go.”
ST LOUIS, KING OF FRANCE

 

[zerinus]

One way we can know that a cult exists, is by the writings of its enemies. Many books have been written in recent times on the Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, by their enemies.

Not to mention that we cannot find any evidence of Mormonism or the JWs in the ordinary historical record of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th centuries, neither can we find any evidence of them even from their enemies. No writings anywhere.

That only reveals your multitude of ignorance. Early Christianity had many enemies who wrote about them in exactly the same terms that you write abut Mormonism. That makes early Christianity a cult I guess.

“Heretics are Antichrists and adversaries of Christ.”
VII COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE

“Heretics are to be classed with thieves and murderers.”
POPE INNOCENT IV

“A Christian should argue with a blasphemer only by running his sword through his bowels as far as it will go.”
ST LOUIS, KING OF FRANCE

LOL! That must makes you guys worthy of all those fine epithets, because it is my sword which is running through your bowls most of the time, not the other way.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

and exactly how mormons got on the picture?

Not quite sure what your question is here. Can you be a bit more specific?

zerinus

 

[roguejim]

That only reveals your multitude of ignorance. Early Christianity had many enemies who wrote about them in exactly the same terms that you write abut Mormonism. That makes early Christianity a cult I guess.

LOL! That must makes you guys worthy of all those fine epithets, because it is my sword which is running through your bowls most of the time, not the other way.

zerinus

Nice dodge. Let’s try another approach. How about some **specific names **of great Mormons from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or
4th centuries? You know, names we might find in your everyday history book of the early Christian church, or encyclopedia. Even one name will do, I’m sure.

“He who falls away from the doctrine and faith of the Catholic Church would not be, nor would even be called, a Christian.”
ST ATHANASIUS

 

[Nate415]

This thread is futile.

Z is a dedicated LDS who cannot be swayed, and the arguments on this thread have gone around and around and around the same topics with not even a shred of progress.

If one completely discounts Catholic Tradition because they believe the Church is apostate, they will never be swayed to believe the Truth.

Likewise, those of us with faith in the Truth will never be swayed by an individual’s disordered interpretation of the bible.

This is like bashing your heads against a wall!

 

[Stephen168]

This thread is futile.

Z is a dedicated LDS who cannot be swayed, and the arguments on this thread have gone around and around and around the same topics with not even a shred of progress.

When you read Zerinus’ case it boils down to this:

Jesus spoke in hyperbole
Therefore John 6:53-57 is hyperbole
Therefore no transubstantiation

Its seem we just have to find some places where Jesus
says exactly what he means and the case falls apart.

 

[Scott36]

That still remains the most illogical, artificial, hypocritical, absurd, stage-managed, and false reasoning imaginable. You must believe that people are really stupid if you think they are going to be fooled by that.

zerinus

Zernius, I’m sincerely sorry for inciting this sort of language and I’m sorry if some of my language has seemed belligerent or offensive to you. I know for both of us, it is likely difficult to keep peace and charity toward one another when something so important as the truth is at stake. Just as our last two popes have made pains to do, we must try to respect and be kind to those of other religions…and I don’t write in a spirit of criticism towards you only, I am guilty of getting frustrated and aggressive minded at times as well. Peace.

Nonetheless, nothing should prevent us from having a reasonable discussion. It’s hard too, with messages like this because there’s no tone of voice in a posted message to clarify one’s tone and emotional state. God loves us both and so we can show love and respect to one another.

You are ignoring the context of the passage completely, and introducing into it absurdities that goes beyond all good sense, rhyme or reason.

The context of the passage is the previous verses where He is telling them that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. After several protestations by His disciples, Jesus finally explains to them the true meaning of what He is saying: “The flesh profiteth nothing . . .,” He says to them. By all the rules of logic and good grammar, the word “flesh” here refers to its nearest antecedent, which is His own flesh that He had been talking about in earlier verses;

zerinus

There are no such rules of logic and good grammar. People are free to use homonyms (words spelled the same but with different meaning) even if in the same sentence e.g. …a corny example I admit “He set the chess set on the table.” By the same token Jesus was completely free and able to use the word flesh with one meaning in one sentence and with a different meaning in another as He does here.

not some absurdity that you would like to pull out of thin air. What He is saying is that eating His flesh physically will not save anyone; but partaking of His Spirit by faith, which is made possible by His atoning sacrifice (the sacrifice of His flesh) is what saves the believer.

zerinus

Perhaps our discussion has helped us both to be more at peace with our respective faith positions. I know it has for me, having looked at that particular verse and having found a satisfying interpretation. Nonetheless, I don’t beleive further exchange between us would be useful since we will not agree today on it.

Let us both pray for each other and ask the Spirit to reveal the truth to us and to all.

over and out, Zernius,
You may have the last word.
God bless You.
Scott

 

[J_C]

This thread is futile.

Z is a dedicated LDS who cannot be swayed, and the arguments on this thread have gone around and around and around the same topics with not even a shred of progress.

If one completely discounts Catholic Tradition because they believe the Church is apostate, they will never be swayed to believe the Truth.

Likewise, those of us with faith in the Truth will never be swayed by an individual’s disordered interpretation of the bible.

This is like bashing your heads against a wall!

I disagree that the thread is futile. it is clear to me that z has failed to make his “case”. All his propesitions have been thoroughly debunked by those Catholics who responded.

his are similar if not identical to the standared protestant objections to transubstantiation. By destroying the mormona case against Catholic belief in the body blood, soul and divinity of Jesus in the Eucharist, we have also destroyed the starndard protestant case as well.

i think the thread was very useful. thanks, z.

 

[zerinus]

Nice dodge. Let’s try another approach. How about some **specific names **of great Mormons from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or
4th centuries? You know, names we might find in your everyday history book of the early Christian church, or encyclopedia. Even one name will do, I’m sure.

I can sure give you names of some “great Mormons” in the first century. I will let you call them “Catholics” after that: Peter and John and James and Matthew and Andrew and Mary. These are enough to get you started.

“He who falls away from the doctrine and faith of the Catholic Church would not be, nor would even be called, a Christian.”
ST ATHANASIUS

And you thought we cared about what Athanasius says?

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

When you read Zerinus’ case it boils down to this:

Jesus spoke in hyperbole
Therefore John 6:53-57 is hyperbole . . .

Wrong! It is a hyperbole because the context of the passage, as well as the context of other related passages in which Jesus as well as His Apostles have talked about it, make it clear that it is a hyperbole.

zerinus

 

[J_C]

I can sure give you names of some “great Mormons” in the first century. I will let you call them “Catholics” after that: Peter and John and James and Matthew and Andrew and Mary. These are enough to get you started.
zerinus

mormons aren’t the only ones making this claim I’ve talked to baptists who say these apostles were baptists. i imagine the jehovawhs make the same claim, along with various other breakaways from teh Catholic church.

it’d be fine to have some more evidence besides the saying so, such as for instance the word mormon showing up somewhere before 1815, or at least many examples and i mean many not just one or two stretches of the imagination from sparse quotes taken out of context, of Christian thinkers discussing momrom theological constructs between ad 100 and ad 1830. or thereabouts.

 

[zerinus]

There are no such rules of logic and good grammar. People are free to use homonyms (words spelled the same but with different meaning) even if in the same sentence e.g. …a corny example I admit . . .

I am afraid there are such rules, and you are flouting them.

Perhaps our discussion has helped us both to be more at peace with our respective faith positions. I know it has for me, having looked at that particular verse and having found a satisfying interpretation. Nonetheless, I don’t beleive further exchange between us would be useful since we will not agree today on it.

Let us both pray for each other and ask the Spirit to reveal the truth to us and to all.

Agreed, if that is what you want!

zerinus

 

[wisdomseeker]

Not quite sure what your question is here. Can you be a bit more specific?

zerinus

I mean by your claims you considered your religion being the true church. by whom you church is declared the true church?

 

[xmormon]

Wrong! It is a hyperbole because the context of the passage, as well as the context of other related passages in which Jesus as well as His Apostles have talked about it, make it clear that it is a hyperbole.

zerinus

Well certainly the first apostles spoke about Mormons. Using phrases like; “there shall arise false prophets drawing away disciples after them”, “they shall make merchandise of the people by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of”, " they shall make light darkness and darkness light" “there shall come a falling away (rebellion) first” etc. etc. Z continues his job of making obviously false statements for all to see. He is like a lawyer trying to do in his client by making a defense that is so obviously a con job that no one will be convinced and his client will clearly be found guilty. Well the LDS are guilty and I hope Z goes on proving it so completely by his absurd explanations trying to prove clear scripture means the exact opposite of what it says.

Tiber diving team of 2004 (we go deeper to penetrate the darkness with the light)