|
Post by DKTrav88 on Jun 26, 2018 0:16:43 GMT
Transubstantiation is, according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, the change of substance or essence by which the bread and wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass, become, in reality, the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that once an ordained priest blesses the bread of the Lord's Supper, it is transformed into the actual flesh of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of bread); and when he blesses the wine, it is transformed into the actual blood of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of wine).
Is this concept biblical? The scripture the Roman Catholic Church cites for this practice is John 6:53-57 KJV [53] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. [54] Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. [57] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. ...which, if interpreted literally, would lead to the “real presence” of Christ in the bread and wine. However, Jesus’s words in John 6:53-57 were spoken figuratively/symbolically. Jesus does this often throughout scripture, especially in His parables. Jesus made it exceedingly obvious what He meant, as in John 6:63 He says, John 6:63 KJV [63] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Jesus specifically stated that His words are “spirit.” Jesus was using physical concepts, eating and drinking, to teach spiritual truth. Just as consuming physical food and drink sustains our physical bodies, so are our spiritual lives saved and built up by spiritually receiving Him, by grace through faith. Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully and completely receiving Him in our lives. The Scriptures declare that the Lord's Supper is a memorial to the body and blood of Christ in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 and not the actual consumption of His physical body and blood. Luke 22:19 KJV [19] And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it , and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 KJV [24] And when he had given thanks, he brake it , and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. [25] After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it , in remembrance of me. When Jesus was speaking in John chapter 6, He had not yet had the Last Supper with His disciples, in which He instituted the Lord’s Supper. To read the Lord’s Supper / Christian Communion back into John chapter 6 is unwarranted.
The most serious reason transubstantiation should be rejected is that it is viewed by the Roman Catholic Church as a "re-sacrifice" of Jesus Christ for our sins, or as a “re-offering / re-presentation” of His sacrifice. This is directly in contradiction to what Scripture says, that Jesus died "once for all" and does not need to be sacrificed again. Hebrews 10:10 KJV [10] By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all . 1 Peter 3:18 KJV [18] For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: Hebrews 7:27 KJV [27] Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
|
|
MEGA
Full Member
Posts: 451
Likes: 285
Meta-Ethnicity: Spirit
Ethnicity: White
Country: USA
Religion: Cristian
Hero: Jesus Christ
Age: 27
Philosophy: Love
|
Post by MEGA on Jun 26, 2018 2:48:37 GMT
Wall of text .
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 26, 2018 2:53:35 GMT
So when did Jesus bring in a priest to bless the items during the Lord's Supper? And so was Jesus a cannibal eating Himself? Some people make no sense with traditions they come up with and make my God a cannibal. Pff.
|
|
|
Post by theringdingster on Jul 4, 2018 0:25:10 GMT
Transubstantiation is, according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, the change of substance or essence by which the bread and wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass, become, in reality, the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that once an ordained priest blesses the bread of the Lord's Supper, it is transformed into the actual flesh of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of bread); and when he blesses the wine, it is transformed into the actual blood of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of wine). Is this concept biblical? The scripture the Roman Catholic Church cites for this practice is John 6:53-57 KJV [53] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. [54] Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. [57] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. ...which, if interpreted literally, would lead to the “real presence” of Christ in the bread and wine. However, Jesus’s words in John 6:53-57 were spoken figuratively/symbolically. Jesus does this often throughout scripture, especially in His parables. Jesus made it exceedingly obvious what He meant, as in John 6:63 He says, John 6:63 KJV [63] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Jesus specifically stated that His words are “spirit.” Jesus was using physical concepts, eating and drinking, to teach spiritual truth. Just as consuming physical food and drink sustains our physical bodies, so are our spiritual lives saved and built up by spiritually receiving Him, by grace through faith. Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully and completely receiving Him in our lives. The Scriptures declare that the Lord's Supper is a memorial to the body and blood of Christ in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 and not the actual consumption of His physical body and blood. Luke 22:19 KJV [19] And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it , and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 KJV [24] And when he had given thanks, he brake it , and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. [25] After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it , in remembrance of me. When Jesus was speaking in John chapter 6, He had not yet had the Last Supper with His disciples, in which He instituted the Lord’s Supper. To read the Lord’s Supper / Christian Communion back into John chapter 6 is unwarranted. The most serious reason transubstantiation should be rejected is that it is viewed by the Roman Catholic Church as a "re-sacrifice" of Jesus Christ for our sins, or as a “re-offering / re-presentation” of His sacrifice. This is directly in contradiction to what Scripture says, that Jesus died "once for all" and does not need to be sacrificed again. Hebrews 10:10 KJV [10] By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all . 1 Peter 3:18 KJV [18] For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: Hebrews 7:27 KJV [27] Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. There are many points in this post and I aim to refute them to the best of my ability. In so doing I wish to break them down with you on each to better hash this out. Why is it you say that when, as you quoted in Jn 6:53-57, Our Lord says 'Verily, verily, I say unto you' you think that he is not speaking literally? Every time He says these words it means he speaks literally. Source: www.gotquestions.org/verily-verily.html
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Jul 4, 2018 1:04:02 GMT
Transubstantiation is, according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, the change of substance or essence by which the bread and wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass, become, in reality, the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that once an ordained priest blesses the bread of the Lord's Supper, it is transformed into the actual flesh of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of bread); and when he blesses the wine, it is transformed into the actual blood of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of wine). Is this concept biblical? The scripture the Roman Catholic Church cites for this practice is John 6:53-57 KJV [53] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. [54] Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. [57] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. ...which, if interpreted literally, would lead to the “real presence” of Christ in the bread and wine. However, Jesus’s words in John 6:53-57 were spoken figuratively/symbolically. Jesus does this often throughout scripture, especially in His parables. Jesus made it exceedingly obvious what He meant, as in John 6:63 He says, John 6:63 KJV [63] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Jesus specifically stated that His words are “spirit.” Jesus was using physical concepts, eating and drinking, to teach spiritual truth. Just as consuming physical food and drink sustains our physical bodies, so are our spiritual lives saved and built up by spiritually receiving Him, by grace through faith. Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully and completely receiving Him in our lives. The Scriptures declare that the Lord's Supper is a memorial to the body and blood of Christ in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 and not the actual consumption of His physical body and blood. Luke 22:19 KJV [19] And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it , and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 KJV [24] And when he had given thanks, he brake it , and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. [25] After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it , in remembrance of me. When Jesus was speaking in John chapter 6, He had not yet had the Last Supper with His disciples, in which He instituted the Lord’s Supper. To read the Lord’s Supper / Christian Communion back into John chapter 6 is unwarranted. The most serious reason transubstantiation should be rejected is that it is viewed by the Roman Catholic Church as a "re-sacrifice" of Jesus Christ for our sins, or as a “re-offering / re-presentation” of His sacrifice. This is directly in contradiction to what Scripture says, that Jesus died "once for all" and does not need to be sacrificed again. Hebrews 10:10 KJV [10] By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all . 1 Peter 3:18 KJV [18] For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: Hebrews 7:27 KJV [27] Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. There are many points in this post and I aim to refute them to the best of my ability. In so doing I wish to break them down with you on each to better hash this out. Why is it you say that when, as you quoted in Jn 6:53-57, Our Lord says 'Verily, verily, I say unto you' you think that he is not speaking literally? Every time He says these words it means he speaks literally. Source: www.gotquestions.org/verily-verily.htmlThe link you posted with your response doesn’t say every time Jesus says 'Verily, verily, I say unto you' that He is speaking literally. Regardless, nowhere in scripture does it instruct a priest to magically change bread and wine in the Christ’s literally body, much less ordain any priest to have any such power, and consume it. Keep in mind, I used to be Catholic, every Sunday was communion, the bread and wine we were given was just that, bread and wine. It wasn’t the literal body and blood of Christ. What Christ said was purely symbolic, not literal.
|
|
|
Post by theringdingster on Jul 4, 2018 4:36:04 GMT
There are many points in this post and I aim to refute them to the best of my ability. In so doing I wish to break them down with you on each to better hash this out. Why is it you say that when, as you quoted in Jn 6:53-57, Our Lord says 'Verily, verily, I say unto you' you think that he is not speaking literally? Every time He says these words it means he speaks literally. Source: www.gotquestions.org/verily-verily.htmlThe link you posted with your response doesn’t say every time Jesus says 'Verily, verily, I say unto you' that He is speaking literally. Regardless, nowhere in scripture does it instruct a priest to magically change bread and wine in the Christ’s literally body, much less ordain any priest to have any such power, and consume it. Keep in mind, I used to be Catholic, every Sunday was communion, the bread and wine we were given was just that, bread and wine. It wasn’t the literal body and blood of Christ. What Christ said was purely symbolic, not literal. Here is another source: biblehub.com/greek/281.htmAnywho, the evidence of Christ in the Eucharist and the priest's ability to call the heavenly powers to confect it are best evidenced in the Catechism: The presence of Christ by the power of his word and the Holy Spirit
1373 "Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us," is present in many ways to his Church: 197 in his word, in his Church's prayer, "where two or three are gathered in my name," 199 in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned, 199 in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. But "he is present . . . most especially in the Eucharistic species." 200
1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." 201 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." 202 "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present." 203
1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares: It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered. 204And St. Ambrose says about this conversion: Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.2051376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation." 2061377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ. 2071378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession." 208
1379 The tabernacle was first intended for the reservation of the Eucharist in a worthy place so that it could be brought to the sick and those absent outside of Mass. As faith in the real presence of Christ in his Eucharist deepened, the Church became conscious of the meaning of silent adoration of the Lord present under the Eucharistic species. It is for this reason that the tabernacle should be located in an especially worthy place in the church and should be constructed in such a way that it emphasizes and manifests the truth of the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. 1380 It is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present to his Church in this unique way. Since Christ was about to take his departure from his own in his visible form, he wanted to give us his sacramental presence; since he was about to offer himself on the cross to save us, he wanted us to have the memorial of the love with which he loved us "to the end," 209 even to the giving of his life. In his Eucharistic presence he remains mysteriously in our midst as the one who loved us and gave himself up for us, 210 and he remains under signs that express and communicate this love: The Church and the world have a great need for Eucharistic worship. Jesus awaits us in this sacrament of love. Let us not refuse the time to go to meet him in adoration, in contemplation full of faith, and open to making amends for the serious offenses and crimes of the world. Let our adoration never cease. 211
1381 "That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses,' says St. Thomas, 'but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.' For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 ('This is my body which is given for you.'), St. Cyril says: 'Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.'" 212
Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore
Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more,
See, Lord, at thy service low lies here a heart
Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art.
Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived;
How says trusty hearing? that shall be believed;
What God's Son has told me, take for truth I do;
Truth himself speaks truly or there's nothing true.213References:197 Rom 8:34; cf. LG 48. 198 Mt 18:20. 199 Cf. Mt 25:31-46. 200 SC 7. 201 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III,73,3c. 202 Council of Trent (1551): DS 1651. 203 Paul VI, MF 39. 204 St. John Chrysostom, prod. Jud. 1:6:PG 49,380. 205 St. Ambrose, De myst. 9,50; 52:PL 16,405-407. 206 Council of Trent (1551): DS 1642; cf. Mt 26:26 ff.; Mk 14:22 ff.; Lk 22:19 ff.; 1 Cor 11:24 ff. 207 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1641. 208 Paul VI, MF 56. 209 Jn 13:1. 210 Cf. Gal 2:20. 211 John Paul II, Dominicae cenae, 3. 212 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III,75,1; cf. Paul VI, MF 18; St. Cyril of Alexandria, In Luc. 22,19:PG 72,912; cf. Paul VI, MF 18. 213 St. Thomas Aquinas (attr.), Adoro te devote; tr. Gerard Manley Hopkins.
|
|
The Cathar
New Member
Modern Cathar
Posts: 40
Likes: 13
Religion: Cathar
Philosophy: Stoic Asceticism
|
Post by The Cathar on Oct 28, 2020 20:38:09 GMT
I am of the view that the Eucharist was never intended to be taken as the literal 'body and blood' of Christ, and that the concept of transubstantiation is flawed at best and at worst an invention of the Church in order to appear more 'mystical'. As far as I am concerned (and this follows the historical Cathar viewpoint) the Eucharist was intended to be celebrated as a meal (bread and wine) as a remembrance of Christ, not some exercise in parlor tricks. As the original Cathars noted, if the Eucharist were indeed the blood and body and Christ, based on the amount that had been consumed up to then 'his body would have been as large as a mountain and his blood would have filled rivers'.
|
|
johnbc
Full Member
Roman Catholic
Posts: 110
Likes: 63
Religion: Catholic
Philosophy: Anarcho-capitalist, Anti-communism
|
Post by johnbc on Oct 28, 2020 23:42:22 GMT
If it is not the literal blood of Jesus Christ, how do you explain the bleeding hosts around the world, and when they take them for analysis, do they conclude that it is from someone who died in agony and that it came precisely from the heart?
Moral preaching doesn't work, quince sticks don't work, psychology doesn't work, tolerance and intolerance are the same crap, only one thing in the world works: it's called EUCHARIST. It is not ‘Jesus’ in the abstract, a merely verbal Jesus accompanied by hysterical visions. It is the Jesus who came in the flesh and who IS IN BREAD AND WINE from the Eucharist. Only this works, only this prevents humans from becoming wolves and vampires. This alone ensures the presence of good in the world.
The effects of the Eucharist spread far beyond the Catholic world. The good it inspires in us is radiant. It is impossible, for those studying history, to ignore that ALL the institutions that do some good to the needy were created by the Catholic Church and only by it: hospitals, maternity hospitals, free education, leprosariums, orphanages, laws protecting women and children, abolition of slavery already in the ancient world, etc. etc. Only through the Church did charity enter human history. After a few centuries, it is as if all this was born in trees or was the creation of the beautiful modern world.
The Eucharist immediately dissolves apparitions and foreshadows - the power of the devil over human imagination. A life without the Eucharist is a permanent invitation to illusion.
|
|
johnbc
Full Member
Roman Catholic
Posts: 110
Likes: 63
Religion: Catholic
Philosophy: Anarcho-capitalist, Anti-communism
|
Post by johnbc on Oct 28, 2020 23:47:57 GMT
To clarify some doubts: The analogy between cannibalism and the Eucharist is superficial and only apparent. It's a stupid idea from Gurdjieff that Girard copied a bit silly. In no cannibalistic rite does the victim remain alive and present while cannibals eat their flesh and blood. Much less remains alive and present throughout the ages, growing in breads and sips of wine everywhere. Cannibalism is killing and eating a human being. In the Eucharist you do not eat the body and drink the blood of a dead person, but of the Living Christ. Body is presence, blood is life. Christ's body is omnipresent and his blood is infinite. You can eat and drink at will, which will not end.
When Jesus said, "Take and eat all of you," He knew that His disciples were going to acquire the reputation of man-eating. The ugliest image hid the most beautiful and sublime of mysteries. The Roman world was frightened, then curious, then dazzled, and finally a believer. It is the strength of divine scandal. The ability that Jesus' enemies have to scandalize Christian souls is NOTHING compared to the Christian's strength to scandalize worldly souls. We have to use that force, confuse the sons of bitches, drive them to despair until they see all the evil they bring inside and make them fall to their knees.
|
|
johnbc
Full Member
Roman Catholic
Posts: 110
Likes: 63
Religion: Catholic
Philosophy: Anarcho-capitalist, Anti-communism
|
Post by johnbc on Oct 28, 2020 23:50:46 GMT
If the body and blood of the Eucharist were only images, instead of designating the real sacrifice of Calvary, they would certainly be the most grotesque figure of speech in universal literature. To interpret them in this way is to reduce Christ to a competitor of the Marquis de Sade.
The Eucharist is not the greatest wonder in the world. It is a wonder bigger than the world.
|
|
johnbc
Full Member
Roman Catholic
Posts: 110
Likes: 63
Religion: Catholic
Philosophy: Anarcho-capitalist, Anti-communism
|
Post by johnbc on Oct 29, 2020 0:46:53 GMT
Jesus never said that bread "symbolized" His body and wine His blood. He said, "This IS my body, this IS my blood". Of course, there is symbolism in this, but in the strong sense of the word symbol, which is the real participation of the inferior in the superior and not in the weak sense of mere "remembrance" or figure of speech. As the Logos is the creator of all matter, He has the power to inflate His real presence in any piece of matter that seems to Him. If He didn't have that power, it wouldn't be God. If God can be present in a burning thorn, why can't He be on a piece of bread that He himself consecrated and said was His body?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 30, 2020 17:48:06 GMT
Non sequitur.
Jesus said "Eat My Flesh and drink My Blood".
There is no "undercover" sence expect that straight meaning from Bible.
So, I guess Bible directly confirm the fact of transubstantiation.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 30, 2020 17:55:23 GMT
"Dktrav88 brand no arguments" – was it said symbolic? How can you define it was said symbolic?
|
|
The Cathar
New Member
Modern Cathar
Posts: 40
Likes: 13
Religion: Cathar
Philosophy: Stoic Asceticism
|
Post by The Cathar on Oct 30, 2020 22:08:27 GMT
If it is not the literal blood of Jesus Christ, how do you explain the bleeding hosts around the world, and when they take them for analysis, do they conclude that it is from someone who died in agony and that it came precisely from the heart? Unfortunately, many of the 'bleeding host miracles' are found to have perfectly natural explanations or investigations have proven them to be frauds or- even worse for the search for truth- the investigations of the items are themselves fraught with mis-steps and mistakes.
|
|
johnbc
Full Member
Roman Catholic
Posts: 110
Likes: 63
Religion: Catholic
Philosophy: Anarcho-capitalist, Anti-communism
|
Post by johnbc on Oct 31, 2020 16:35:17 GMT
If it is not the literal blood of Jesus Christ, how do you explain the bleeding hosts around the world, and when they take them for analysis, do they conclude that it is from someone who died in agony and that it came precisely from the heart? Unfortunately, many of the 'bleeding host miracles' are found to have perfectly natural explanations or investigations have proven them to be frauds or- even worse for the search for truth- the investigations of the items are themselves fraught with mis-steps and mistakes. And.....? What's with the "scientific" explanation? Show me the article then. What I find funny is that the neo-atheists affirm something with absolute zero evidence to the contrary, as if it were a coping mechanism. Pathetic.
|
|