Is the Eucharist only symbolic.

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
polonius
Prodigy
Posts: 3904
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:03 pm
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 1 time

Is the Eucharist only symbolic.

Post #1

Post by polonius »

" Paschasius Radbertus was the first to formulate the doctrine of transubstantiation in the ninth century. He was opposed by Ratranmus, a contemporary monk at the monastery of Corbie. Ratranmus wrote: "The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a figurative sense" (De corpore et sanguine Christi). This controversy between two Catholic monks shows that both views were present in the Catholic church at least up to the eleventh century. The debate continued until the thirteenth century when the final decision was taken by the Lateran Council in 1215.

The Doctor of the Church, Duns Scotus, admits that transubstantiation was not an article of faith before that the thirteenth century"

polonius
Prodigy
Posts: 3904
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:03 pm
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #121

Post by polonius »

MarysSon wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: What you said in post #106 was an honest and sincere expression of 'concern'?

Are you sure that it was not a smug and flippant remark – now being masqueraded as 'concern'?

Example of Christianity in action?

Thanks
Sure - I'm concerned for ALL of you who deny Christ.
According to Scripture, your future looks mighty BLEAK . . .
RESPONSE:

"According to scripture...."???

Scripture contains so many errors that it would be unrealistic to consider it reliable.

For example the N.T. begins by having Matthew tell us that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod who died in 4 b.c. Next Luke tells that Jesus was born during the 6 a.d. Roman Census of Judea.

Obvious conclusion: Mary had two sons named Jesus born ten years apart. (Only one was crucified, the other not).

One of the many "according to scripture" falsehoods!

Can I take it you are a fundamentalist who believes everything in the Bible is correct?
Hint: Hardly!

User avatar
MarysSon
Banned
Banned
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2020 5:42 pm

Post #122

Post by MarysSon »

Zzyzx wrote: .
MarysSon wrote: Sure - I'm concerned for ALL of you who deny Christ.
According to Scripture, your future looks mighty BLEAK . . .
As a resident of the infamous Bible Belt, I am surrounded by people who claim to have special knowledge by virtue of believing tales about one of the thousands of 'gods' depicted in ancient legends, folklore, and/or religion-promoting literature.

They seem convinced that their favored ancient writers and religion promoters actually knew about invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities – and that they wrote absolute truth accurately. Here in debate similar attitudes prevail.

Being confident in their opinion, true-believers often convey an attitude of smug superiority derived from their choice of worship practices and perhaps rituals. Unfortunately, their assumed 'wisdom' only applies to a proposed 'afterlife' (which like 'gods' cannot be shown to be anything more than products of human imagination and wishful thinking).

In the real world, believers are indistinguishable (except if calling attention by dress or ornamentation). They are incarcerated at average rates, divorce at average rates, and have half a million abortions annually in the US (while preaching the opposite).

Perhaps 'concern' should be directed toward those who pretend to be special or 'chosen' but cannot demonstrate 'specialness' except in opinion and imagination.

Back to the OP: A biologist can determine whether the wafer and wine are, in fact, meat and blood. All else is conjecture, opinion, symbolism, fantasy (or whatever).
Your angry rant aside - this is EXACTLY what I was talking about.
Those who profess Christ yet procure abortions are the very SAME ones who are actually denying Him.

I'm concerned for ALL of you - not just the ones who openly deny Him . . .

User avatar
MarysSon
Banned
Banned
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2020 5:42 pm

Post #123

Post by MarysSon »

polonius wrote:RESPONSE:

"According to scripture...."???

Scripture contains so many errors that it would be unrealistic to consider it reliable.

For example the N.T. begins by having Matthew tell us that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod who died in 4 b.c. Next Luke tells that Jesus was born during the 6 a.d. Roman Census of Judea.

Obvious conclusion: Mary had two sons named Jesus born ten years apart. (Only one was crucified, the other not).

One of the many "according to scripture" falsehoods!

Can I take it you are a fundamentalist who believes everything in the Bible is correct?
Hint: Hardly!
Actually, I’ve read your nonsense about the dating of Christmas and although I didn’t really want to get into a long, drawn-out discussion about Christmas – I felt your constant snarky comments needed to be addressed. What it boils down to is that the 2 Gospel accounts are only “different� if you start from the wrong point in time.

From https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/
Both Luke and Matthew mention Jesus’ birth as occurring during Herod’s reign (Luke 1:5; Matthew 2:1). Josephus relates Herod’s death to a lunar eclipse. This is generally regarded as a reference to a lunar eclipse in 4 B.C. Therefore it is often said that Jesus was born in 4 B.C.

But physics professor John A. Cramer, in a letter to BAR, has pointed out that there was another lunar eclipse visible in Judea—in fact, two—in 1 B.C., which would place Herod’s death—and Jesus’ birth—at the turn of the era. Below, read letters published in the Q&C section of BAR debating the dates of Herod’s death, Jesus’ birth and to which lunar eclipse Josephus was referring.

When Was Jesus Born?
Q&C, BAR, July/August 2013

Let me add a footnote to Suzanne Singer’s report on the final journey of Herod the Great (Strata, BAR, March/April 2013): She gives the standard date of his death as 4 B.C. [Jesus’ birth is often dated to 4 B.C. based on the fact that both Luke and Matthew associate Jesus’ birth with Herod’s reign—Ed.] Readers may be interested to learn there is reason to reconsider the date of Herod’s death.

This date is based on Josephus’s remark in Antiquities 17.6.4 that there was a lunar eclipse shortly before Herod died. This is traditionally ascribed to the eclipse of March 13, 4 B.C.

Unfortunately, this eclipse was visible only very late that night in Judea and was additionally a minor and only partial eclipse.

There were no lunar eclipses visible in Judea thereafter until two occurred in the year 1 B.C. Of these two, the one on December 29, just two days before the change of eras, gets my vote since it was the one most likely to be seen and remembered. That then dates the death of Herod the Great into the first year of the current era, four years after the usual date.

Perhaps the much-maligned monk who calculated the change of era was not quite so far off as has been supposed.

John A. Cramer
Professor of Physics
Oglethorpe University
Atlanta, Georgia



According to Cramer:
Trying to date the death of Herod the Great is attended by considerable uncertainty, and I do not mean to claim I know the right answer. Mr. Tempelman does a good job of pointing out arguments in favor of a 4 B.C. date following the arguments advanced long ago by Emil Schürer. The difficulty is that we have a fair amount of information, but it is equivocal.

The key information comes, of course, from Josephus who brackets the death by “a fast� and the Passover. He says that on the night of the fast there was a lunar eclipse—the only eclipse mentioned in the entire corpus of his work. Correlation of Josephus with the Talmud and Mishnah indicate the fast was probably Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur occurs on the tenth day of the seventh month (mid-September to mid-October) and Passover on the 15th day of the first month (March or April) of the religious calendar. Josephus does not indicate when within that time interval the death occurred.

Only four lunar eclipses occurred in the likely time frame: September 15, 5 B.C., March 12–13, 4 B.C., January 10, 1 B.C. and December 29, 1 B.C. The first eclipse fits Yom Kippur, almost too early, but possible. It was a total eclipse that became noticeable several hours after sundown, but it is widely regarded as too early to fit other information on the date. The favorite 4 B.C. eclipse seems too far from Yom Kippur and much too close to Passover. This was a partial eclipse that commenced after midnight. It hardly seems a candidate for being remembered and noted by Josephus. The 1 B.C. dates require either that the fast was not Yom Kippur or that the calendar was rejiggered for some reason. The January 10 eclipse was total but commenced shortly before midnight on a winter night. Lastly, in the December 29 eclipse the moon rose at 53 percent eclipse and its most visible aspect was over by 6 p.m. It is the most likely of the four to have been noted and commented on.

None of the four candidates fits perfectly to all the requirements. I like the earliest and the latest of them as the most likely. The most often preferred candidate, the 4 B.C. eclipse, is, in my view, far and away the least likely one.

When Was Jesus Born? When Did Herod Die?
Q&C, BAR, January/February 2014

Professor John A. Cramer argues that Herod the Great most likely died shortly after the lunar eclipse of December 29, 1 B.C., rather than that of March 13, 4 B.C., which, as Cramer points out, is the eclipse traditionally associated with Josephus’s description in Jewish Antiquities 17.6.4 (Queries & Comments, “When Was Jesus Born?� BAR, July/August 2013) and which is used as a basis to reckon Jesus’ birth shortly before 4 B.C. Professor Cramer’s argument was made in the 19th century by scholars such as Édouard Caspari and Florian Riess.

polonius
Prodigy
Posts: 3904
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:03 pm
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 1 time

Souldn't we simplify historical claims?

Post #124

Post by polonius »

Let's see.

1. Matthew chap 2 reports Jesus was born duing the reign of King Herod.

2. Following his death, his son Archelaus became ruler of Judea.

3.Herod's son Herod Archelaus, ruled Judea so badly that he was dismissed in 6 CE by the Roman emperor Augustus, who appointed Quirinius to exercise direct Roman rule after an appeal from Herod Archelaus' own population, thus was formed the Province of Judea.

4. It was then (6 AD) that the Romans appointed Quirinius to be governor of Judea.

5. The first thing Quirinius did was conduct a census. As Luke notes, Jesus was born during this census (of 6 AD).

6 This was a second Jesus born at least 10 years after the first.

Needless introducing complexity doesn't change these simple facts of history.


Perhaps we can examine more fully the many errors of the New Testament. ;)

polonius
Prodigy
Posts: 3904
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:03 pm
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 1 time

What is fundamentalism?

Post #125

Post by polonius »

Fundamentalism

noun
(sometimes initial capital letter) a religious movement characterized by a strict belief in the literal interpretation of religious texts, especially within American Protestantism and Islam.

There is no corresponding fundamentalist movement within the Catholic Church. What is called Catholic Fundamentalism refers to those who would cite Conciliar documents, Papal encyclicals and the Catechism of the Catholic Church in a very literal sense to support authentic Catholic teaching and practices.

User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Post #126

Post by historia »

Athetotheist wrote:
If gluten cannot be removed without changing wheat bread into something else, then gluten is essential and cannot be an "accident" of the bread, but must be of the substance of it.

If gluten is of the substance of wheat bread and that substance "must give way"----as the bishops have said----to become the "whole Christ", then the gluten should give way and no longer be gluten.

Isn't that logically sound?
I'm afraid you're still misunderstanding the difference between "substance" and "accidents," as those terms are used in their philosophical sense.

This is entirely understandable, as in the modern world we don't really think in these Aristotelian categories anymore. Worse, those terms have different meanings in common English usage, which can render them misleading.
Athetotheist wrote:
Here's the whole thing:
www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-ma ... nswers.cfm
(I take most of my points from #3 and #4.)
Let's look at question #3 a little more closely, as this is the critical point:
USCCB wrote:
Such terms ["substance" and "accidents"] are used to convey the fact that what appears to be bread and wine in every way (at the level of "accidents" or physical attributes - that is, what can be seen, touched, tasted, or measured) in fact is now the Body and Blood of Christ (at the level of "substance" or deepest reality)
"Accidents" are the physical attributes of something.

Gluten is a physical attribute of wheat bread, and thus part of its "accidents." The doctrine of Transubstantiation holds that the accidents of the bread and wine remain unchanged. So, even after the invocation, you would still be able to see, feel, taste, measure (even down to the atomic level), and (if you are allergic) be affected by the gluten in the Eucharistic bread.

"Substance" is a metaphysical concept. It's thought of as a deeper aspect of reality that undergirds an object's physical properties.

We cannot directly observe the "substance" of something, only its "accidents" (its physical properties). The doctrine of Transubstantiation holds that the underlying "substance" of the bread and wine change into the body and blood (and soul and divinity) of Christ.

Hope that helps.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Post #127

Post by Athetotheist »

historia wrote:
Athetotheist wrote:
If gluten cannot be removed without changing wheat bread into something else, then gluten is essential and cannot be an "accident" of the bread, but must be of the substance of it.

If gluten is of the substance of wheat bread and that substance "must give way"----as the bishops have said----to become the "whole Christ", then the gluten should give way and no longer be gluten.

Isn't that logically sound?
I'm afraid you're still misunderstanding the difference between "substance" and "accidents," as those terms are used in their philosophical sense.

This is entirely understandable, as in the modern world we don't really think in these Aristotelian categories anymore. Worse, those terms have different meanings in common English usage, which can render them misleading.
Athetotheist wrote:
Here's the whole thing:
www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-ma ... nswers.cfm
(I take most of my points from #3 and #4.)
Let's look at question #3 a little more closely, as this is the critical point:
USCCB wrote:
Such terms ["substance" and "accidents"] are used to convey the fact that what appears to be bread and wine in every way (at the level of "accidents" or physical attributes - that is, what can be seen, touched, tasted, or measured) in fact is now the Body and Blood of Christ (at the level of "substance" or deepest reality)
"Accidents" are the physical attributes of something.

Gluten is a physical attribute of wheat bread, and thus part of its "accidents." The doctrine of Transubstantiation holds that the accidents of the bread and wine remain unchanged. So, even after the invocation, you would still be able to see, feel, taste, measure (even down to the atomic level), and (if you are allergic) be affected by the gluten in the Eucharistic bread.

"Substance" is a metaphysical concept. It's thought of as a deeper aspect of reality that undergirds an object's physical properties.

We cannot directly observe the "substance" of something, only its "accidents" (its physical properties). The doctrine of Transubstantiation holds that the underlying "substance" of the bread and wine change into the body and blood (and soul and divinity) of Christ.

Hope that helps.
"What appears to be bread and wine in every way.....in fact is now the Body and Blood of Christ"

If what only appears to be gluten is now in fact the body of Jesus, then any harm it does can't be blamed on what it only appears to be. So which is more likely: that the body of Jesus would harm a sincere recipient of communion, or that transubstantiation just doesn't happen? Does it make any sense that the "deepest reality" of Jesus can't stop what appears to be gluten from hurting someone ?

User avatar
MarysSon
Banned
Banned
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2020 5:42 pm

Re: Souldn't we simplify historical claims?

Post #128

Post by MarysSon »

polonius wrote: Let's see.

1. Matthew chap 2 reports Jesus was born duing the reign of King Herod.

2. Following his death, his son Archelaus became ruler of Judea.

3.Herod's son Herod Archelaus, ruled Judea so badly that he was dismissed in 6 CE by the Roman emperor Augustus, who appointed Quirinius to exercise direct Roman rule after an appeal from Herod Archelaus' own population, thus was formed the Province of Judea.

4. It was then (6 AD) that the Romans appointed Quirinius to be governor of Judea.

5. The first thing Quirinius did was conduct a census. As Luke notes, Jesus was born during this census (of 6 AD).

6 This was a second Jesus born at least 10 years after the first.

Needless introducing complexity doesn't change these simple facts of history.


Perhaps we can examine more fully the many errors of the New Testament.
Just as I thought - you didn't actually READ my post.
Can't have an intelligent discussion with a person whose cowardice gets in the way of examining the facts . . .

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #129

Post by Elijah John »

MarysSon wrote: Just as I thought - you didn't actually READ my post.
Can't have an intelligent discussion with a person whose cowardice gets in the way of examining the facts . . .
:warning: Moderator Warning


This is a blatant personal attack. And you are already on probation. Not good. If you want to continue your participation here you would be well advised to mend your ways. A suspension or even a banishment vote is the logical next step.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Post #130

Post by historia »

Athetotheist wrote:
"What appears to be bread and wine in every way.....in fact is now the Body and Blood of Christ"

If what only appears to be gluten is now in fact the body of Jesus, then any harm it does can't be blamed on what it only appears to be. So which is more likely: that the body of Jesus would harm a sincere recipient of communion, or that transubstantiation just doesn't happen? Does it make any sense that the "deepest reality" of Jesus can't stop what appears to be gluten from hurting someone ?
You're reading more into the word "appears" here than is warranted.

The point the article is making is that, according to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the physical properties of the bread remain unchanged, and so the physical effects of the bread also remain unchanged.

Your objection to the doctrine based on the fact that the physical effects of the gluten in the bread remain unchanged is therefore based on a simple misunderstanding of what the doctrine entails.

Post Reply