While this thread exists, there is always an argument! CHOOSE PEACE, instead!!!![]()
While this thread exists, there is always an argument! CHOOSE PEACE, instead!!!![]()
If we truly understand the meaning of what's happening bro, would the flavor of the host really matter? I mean, if we believe that it is really Jesus whom we are receiving during Holy Communion, would it matter that he is not flavored?
I read this article yesterday about Transubstantiation and I learned that the wafer actually has to be of a particular kind. It has to be made of wheat and the wine has to be grape wine. This is because presumably the bread that Jesus used at the Last Supper was made of wheat and the wine was made from grape fruit.
I think they're worth listening to.Maybe there is a process that the priests will explain in wonderfully colored and magical sounding words.![]()
Yes it's a religious doctrine bro and we believe it to be true. And belief need not be blind. Belief can be reasonable.Imo pud na bro..
ang ako lng i-point out is that "God became flesh in Jesus" is still a doctrine of religion.. which still points to symbolism.. its still a belief.. not really related to any physical reality..
Yes, they were just ordinary people, but why should we think that they should know anything about Chemistry or any of the sciences? One writer once said that the genre of the Gospels is that of ancient biography. It's clearly not a sort of Science textbook. In the first place, there's no reason why they should know anything at all about Chemistry or any of the sciences.its quite simple to show na doctrine ra japon ni.. you can just ask yourself where you got the idea that God became flesh in Jesus.. that's from the Bible.. and who wrote the Bible? Ordinary people like us.. and they didn't know any better about chemistry or physical reality.. they just wrote what they believe in.. and you read it, so you believe it also..
The Church bro never claimed that you can actually see the host and the wine transform into Christ's body and blood in the laboratory. Philosophers distinguish between a thing's substance and a thing's "accidents" or outward properties/ attributes. During consecration at the Mass, the host's substance changes but not its "accidents". The host becomes Christ's body and the wine becomes Christ's blood but the outward properties remain, so they still look, feel, smell, and taste like bread and wine, but in essence they have become Christ's body and blood, and in addition, his soul and divinity, for as Catholic theologians would say, his divinity is inseparable from his humanity because he is God made man.as to proving that belief is physical reality, that's a different story which requires a series of tests..![]()
I guess all these will sound fantastic if you don't believe in God. Catholics, of course, believe in God. And again I say belief need not be blind, it can also be reasonable. Coming from the Catholic point of view, what transforms the bread and wine into Christ's body, blood, soul and divinity, is Jesus' word itself, his power, which he first spoke at the Last Supper. With the miracles he performed during his ministry, he has demonstrated that he has the authority over nature, demons, and us ourselves, God's creation. Likewise he has also validated his radical personal claims of being "one with God." He often referred to himself as the "Bread of Life" and in his teachings he promised to give us food that will end all our hunger. He was talking about a spiritual kind of food. In the Gospel of John he fed 5000 people with 5 loaves of bread and a couple of fishes. If he can do that, if he can suspend the laws of physics, then that demonstrates that he is the author of nature. If he can do that, he can also transform the bread and wine into his body, blood, soul and divinity.
I think the authenticity of all the miracles, events and sayings surrounding Jesus in the New Testament hinges upon the reliability of the NT as a historical document. I believe it is reliable. From what I understand, NT historians approach the NT documents as they would any ancient document, and I believe the consensus is that the NT is far more reliable than any ancient document that exists today. I've also read that NT historians sometimes talk about the number of variants (or differences in the wording, spelling, etc., of the verses) between the existing copies of manuscripts of the NT. They say the number is high (If I remember correctly, it's about 24,000) because of the number of available manuscripts today, but these variants doesn't affect the essential teachings of Christianity, like Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.
I know a few scholars who have devoted their academic life to the issue of the reliability of the NT and Jesus' resurrection: Gary Habermas, Craig Blomberg, N.T. Wright, Ben Witherington III, William Lane Craig. You can check them out.
Last edited by josephdc; 05-11-2009 at 03:28 PM.
relation to God not religion
is showbiz a religion, mr.regnauld?
some people believe in Joe Pesci and not in God.
Similar Threads |
|