Protestantism was falsified here on TOL

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Try to stay on topic boys. I know it's tough.

Topic being: Your view of the Eucharist (which is that same view as all atheists) was homogenized in a blender and then poured down the sewer. Plenty of Dispensationalists participated in the debate.

And none of them could stop it.

Jesus Christ is Really Present in the Eucharist.
You are delusional!

Not to mention irrational, or didn't you think I'd notice the little "guilt by association" fallacy you threw into your comment. Do you believe that sky is blue? If so, that's the same view as all atheists. Does that imply you're wrong about the color of the sky? It's just pathetic stupidity. Only desperate fools who know they are lying, liken people who hold a different theological view to atheists. The only thing more desperate is when someone declares something to be a "doctrine of the devil" or the equivalent.

Now, "Jesus Christ is Really Present in the Eucharist." is an affirmative claim. Why you chose to write it as though it were a title of a book, I don't know but what I do know is that the burden of proof is upon the party making the affirmative claim not on those who deny it. You claim that the whole glorified Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine and so I say, prove it.

You won't even try. The closest you will come is quoting John 6 and Matthew 26, neither of which say anything about bread and wine turning into flesh and blood. The bread and wine that Jesus shared at the last supper (Matthew 26) are symbols. God loves using symbols and has done so right throughout the scripture starting from Genesis chapter one and there is zero evidence, either contextual or grammatical, that John 6 or Matthew 26 (and elsewhere) isn't speaking figuratively. In fact, what is happening in John 6 is that Jesus is being intentionally and flagrantly offensive toward those who are listening to Him. His use of words is intended to make people angry and give them an excuse to reject Him, not to teach some superstitious nonsense like transubstantiation.

Clete

P.S. Incidentally, not even all Catholics believe this superstition.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
All Protestants believe Christ is present in the Eucharist, just like we believe He is present in our other worship services.

Matthew 18:20 (KJV)
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

But if Christ is present only when a priest blesses the elements, it goes beyond what scripture tells us.
They go way further than that!

They believe that the bread and wine physically become the actual flesh and blood of the glorified Christ!

The belief is called transubstantiation and it's superstitious nonsense that the bible does not teach and that does not happen.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
They go way further than that!

They believe that the bread and wine physically become the actual flesh and blood of the glorified Christ!

The belief is called transubstantiation and it's superstitious nonsense that the bible does not teach and that does not happen.
When I hear a Catholic discussing this reverently, I know that they don't know Christ. They don't have Christ in them.They are not indwelt with the Holy Spirit.

And it saddens me because they have allowed the priest to come between them and God.
 

Derf

Well-known member
They go way further than that!

They believe that the bread and wine physically become the actual flesh and blood of the glorified Christ!

The belief is called transubstantiation and it's superstitious nonsense that the bible does not teach and that does not happen.
Thank you, Clete, I did actually read some of this thread and the other one before posting. I'm trying to understand why they think there's warrant for taking the scripture so literal in this one aspect, while not bothering to in another.

I don't believe the wine and bread become body and blood, but I don't see a scriptural reason why it couldn't be that way--even the cannibalism side of it, even though gross to me, is not prohibited in scripture, as far as I can tell. But I also saw no indication from the referenced thread, so far as I've read, to make such a wild conclusion as @Idolater has made, that the debate was decisively won in the Catholic/Orthodox position's favor. The position was laid out, and some refutations were made. But I haven't finished reading it, either.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
When I hear a Catholic discussing this reverently, I know that they don't know Christ. They don't have Christ in them.They are not indwelt with the Holy Spirit.

And it saddens me because they have allowed the priest to come between them and God.
Yeah, well that may be taking a bit too far. There are lots of Christians who believe wacky things but who still love God and trust in Christ's shed blood as the payment for their sin and that God raised Him from the dead. In other words, believing this one wacky doctrine does not absolutely disqualify someone as a saved believer in Christ.

Transubstantiation isn't even the wackiest thing that I've seen otherwise well meaning Christians believe! Watch TBN much? Pentecostals believe one wacky doctrine after another. Everything from the "name it and claim it" nonsense, to speaking in gibberish, to snake handling and intentionally drinking poison.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Thank you, Clete, I did actually read some of this thread and the other one before posting. I'm trying to understand why they think there's warrant for taking the scripture so literal in this one aspect, while not bothering to in another.
Excellent point! They take these passages in a woodenly literal manner but you don't see the same people taking John 16 quite a literally and doing things like handling snake and drinking strychnine.

I don't believe the wine and bread become body and blood, but I don't see a scriptural reason why it couldn't be that way--even the cannibalism side of it, even though gross to me, is not prohibited in scripture, as far as I can tell.
Actually, the bible expressly forbids the drinking of blood (Genesis 9:2-4; Leviticus 17:14), a prohibition that was not lifted until Israel had been cut off and God turned to the Gentiles through Paul.
Also, if the bread and wine became actual flesh and blood then, not only would that be a continuous miracle (entirely unpresidented in scripture), but there would be actual evidence that this was happening. But of course, there isn't any such evidence as is the case with all supposed modern miracles.

But I also saw no indication from the referenced thread, so far as I've read, to make such a wild conclusion as @Idolater has made, that the debate was decisively won in the Catholic/Orthodox position's favor. The position was laid out, and some refutations were made. But I haven't finished reading it, either.
Don't bother. I can guarantee you, without having read a syllable of it, that no such compelling argument was made. The title of this thread was only just so much click bait. Click bait that worked, by the way.

Clete
 

Derf

Well-known member
Excellent point! They take these passages in a woodenly literal manner but you don't see the same people taking John 16 quite a literally and doing things like handling snake and drinking strychnine.
Mark 16, maybe?
Actually, the bible expressly forbids the drinking of blood (Genesis 9:2-4; Leviticus 17:14), a prohibition that was not lifted until Israel had been cut off and God turned to the Gentiles through Paul.
Also, if the bread and wine became actual flesh and blood then, not only would that be a continuous miracle (entirely unpresidented in scripture), but there would be actual evidence that this was happening. But of course, there isn't any such evidence as is the case with all supposed modern miracles.
The prohibition in Genesis 9:2-4 was against eating the blood of animals. The murder prohibition that followed prevents the other aspects, unless the person dies willingly. Leviticus is a little stronger, but mainly in the preceding verses to your reference. It forbids any manner of blood in Vs 10, but then clarifies that it is talking about animal blood in vs 13.

[Lev 17:10 KJV]
And whatsoever man [there be] of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

[Lev 17:11 KJV]
For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.

[Lev 17:12 KJV]
Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.

[Lev 17:13 KJV]
And whatsoever man [there be] of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.

Click bait that worked, by the way.
Well, sure. Kudos to @Idolater!
 

annabenedetti

Well-known member
When I hear a Catholic discussing this reverently, I know that they don't know Christ. They don't have Christ in them.They are not indwelt with the Holy Spirit.

So you "know" @chrysostom doesn't know Christ, doesn't have Christ in him, and isn't indwelt with the Holy Spirit? Does he know that, while you're busy thanking him every day for his posts relating to Catholicism?
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Mark 16, maybe?
Yes, Mark 16! That's what I get for doing these posts in a rush.

The prohibition in Genesis 9:2-4 was against eating the blood of animals. The murder prohibition that followed prevents the other aspects, unless the person dies willingly. Leviticus is a little stronger, but mainly in the preceding verses to your reference. It forbids any manner of blood in Vs 10, but then clarifies that it is talking about animal blood in vs 13.

[Lev 17:10 KJV]
And whatsoever man [there be] of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

[Lev 17:11 KJV]
For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.

[Lev 17:12 KJV]
Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.

[Lev 17:13 KJV]
And whatsoever man [there be] of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.
There can be no argument on this point. The prohibition against the consumption of blood is clear, as you have just shown. If you think that the bible condones the consumption of human blood (i.e. cannibalism) because of Leviticus 17:13 then I don't know what to tell you. I can tell you for certain that Jesus' comments in John 6 were offensive to people, and intentionally so, precisely because of the very prohibitions you have cited here.

In any case, none of this goes toward any argument in support of the nutty doctrine of transubstantiation.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
This subject was even addressed by Dr. Leighton Flowers on his show Soteriology 101 in a video a few months ago.


Long story short, anyone who believes in transsubstantiation, et al, are, like the people Jesus was talking to in this chapter, completely missing the point of what Christ was teaching, and it's because they miss the point that they came up with such odd ideas.
 
Last edited:

Idolater

Christe Eleison
If non-Catholic/Orthodox ministers aren't valid pastors in your eyes, are they teaching valid truths? Salvational truth?
It's a matter of liturgy ---- you know this. They can and many do teach valid truths and soteriological or salvific truth, but they don't celebrate Church, Christian liturgy, you know that 'priest work' is called 'liturgy,' and there's such a category as authentic liturgy for the Church.

We are a priesthood, the common priesthood. Our ministers are ministerial priests, they are our helpers in our own liturgy, they facilitate the liturgy of all Catholics and Orthodox Christians.
I already answered. Why are you asking again?
There are lots of Catholics who disagree with something that the Apostles taught as the dogmatic infallible Gospel truth, but part of that is on the bishops, who have, while transmitting probably everything they have received that originated with one of the Apostles, also taught things that the bishops made up.

The Orthodox are even worse imo, because at least the Catholic college of bishops took a big risk by publishing everything that the Catholic Sacred Tradition contains. In there are things that are probably made up by bishops somewhere along the previous 19 centuries of Church history, but also there are all the authentic Apostolic lessons basically verbatim or at least thought-for-thought.

The Orthodox don't have anything like this. There are a bunch of Orthodox churches, each led by a patriarch (the pope used to be considered the patriarch of Rome, back before the 1054 Schism), and they have not all together, and none of them have done it individually, published anything so clear as the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There is no source for everything that Orthodoxy teaches and believes. They might say the Bible and the councils (the councils they judge to be valid), but even then, it isn't anywhere at all clear what the entirety is of the Orthodox faith, unlike with the Catechism.

It would be nice if there is some hidden portion of the Apostolic Tradition that does positively delimit what is and what is not Apostolic instead of interpolation or extrapolation, like how the canon of the Bible is positively delimited (we know precisely the table of contents of the Bible approved by the Apostles). But if we have written down now all that is contained in the Apostolic Tradition as taught by Catholic bishops, then we can perhaps all together reason about which parts are likely Apostolic and which parts are unlikely to be Apostolic.

But there isn't any doubt that the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is Apostolic, it's even literally right in the Bible, four separate times. There really isn't a lot of doctrine that is repeated four separate times in four separate books in the Bible, the Real Presence is one of those things.

Not believing in the Real Presence in the valid liturgy is what I'm calling the Protestant view in this thread. Both the Orthodox and Catholic churches have valid pastors so Orthodox and Catholic liturgy is valid, but the Protestant view rejects the Real Presence, and so the Protestant view doesn't see any substantial difference between the Orthodox and Catholic liturgies on the one hand, and Protestant liturgies (which even includes abstaining from any 'corporate worship services' at all) on the other.

The meat of the winning argument in the OP's linked thread is that going as far back as we can see from here, the one Church has always believed in the Real Presence. Among putative Christians, it wasn't seriously considered to be fictional until the 1500s. It is definitely an innovation, and a tradition of man, to reject the Real Presence.

So I guess you're basically a Protestant in this thread, and not a Catholic. :(
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
We are a priesthood, the common priesthood. Our ministers are ministerial priests, they are our helpers in our own liturgy, they facilitate the liturgy of all Catholics and Orthodox Christians.

The RCC might be, but the Body of Christ is not a priesthood. Which puts the RCC in the wrong.

But there isn't any doubt that the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is Apostolic,

Saying it doesn't make it so, idolater, and no, I'm not using your username.

it's even literally right in the Bible, four separate times.

See the video above.

There really isn't a lot of doctrine that is repeated four separate times in four separate books in the Bible, the Real Presence is one of those things.

Except that it's not doctrine. You, just like most Catholics, are simply missing the point of what Christ was saying, as did the ones He was speaking to in John 6.

Not believing in the Real Presence in the valid liturgy is what I'm calling the Protestant view in this thread.

We don't go by what you decide. Words have meanings, and you don't get to define them.

Both the Orthodox and Catholic churches have valid pastors so Orthodox and Catholic liturgy is valid, but the Protestant view rejects the Real Presence,

Because it's a false doctrine.

The meat of the winning argument in the OP's linked thread is that going as far back as we can see from here, the one Church has always believed in the Real Presence. Among putative Christians, it wasn't seriously considered to be fictional until the 1500s. It is definitely an innovation, and a tradition of man, to reject the Real Presence.

False.

So I guess you're basically a Protestant in this thread, and not a Catholic. :(

Ah, the old "you don't believe as I do, therefore you must not be a true X." Classic.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
So you're denying that I'm calling you out on a potential false dichotomy?



Except that it's not.

Like Catholicism, Protestantism isn't a monolithic group.



Please don't lump brothers in Christ in with Atheists.



Because you say so?



And which view would that be? hmm?



No answer to what, exactly?

Can you ask the same question that was asked of him here? Or are you too lazy to make the argument?



:yawn:

@Idolater Still waiting on a reply to this. And yes, I'm going to keep asking.
 

Idolater

Christe Eleison
@Idolater Still waiting on a reply to this. And yes, I'm going to keep asking.
Your view is the Protestant view. It is the same view as the atheist view, I point out, just because it is a fact, and not to be offensive. Your view is that, during the one Church's valid liturgy, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is fiction.

It doesn't matter if you don't believe in the one Church, or in valid liturgy, or in taking communion. You don't believe in the Real Presence. So it doesn't matter if you believe in those other things. It's either a simple yes or no.

The OP claims that the debate in the linked thread logically snuffed out the possibility that Protestantism is true.

So if you're contending with the OP, then you need to address what sustains the claim made in the linked thread, and I set out the relatively few posts you'd need to read, in order to be brought up to speed in the discussion. This is like a one-on-one debate discussion thread, the debate's over, and there was a winner, so if you want to discuss the topic of the thread, then read the debate. Please and thank you.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Your view is the Protestant view.

And that would be, what, exactly?

It is the same view as the atheist view,

My, a Christian's, view, is the same as an atheist's?

Are you sure you're not on something?

1) This is a straw man, in that you are misrepresenting (blatantly) what I believe.
2) This is a false dichotomy, in that it assumes that there are only two positions to be had in this discussion.
3) This is question begging, in that you're assuming that your position is correct.

I point out, just because it is a fact, and not to be offensive.

Saying it doesn't make it so, on both points.

Your view is that, during the one Church's valid liturgy, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is fiction.

False.

My view is that people who believe in such are completely missing the point of what is being taught by scripture, and that such misunderstanding has resulted in a false doctrine.

It doesn't matter if you don't believe in the one Church, or in valid liturgy, or in taking communion. You don't believe in the Real Presence. So it doesn't matter if you believe in those other things. It's either a simple yes or no.

The OP claims that the debate in the linked thread logically snuffed out the possibility that Protestantism is true.

And that claim is false.

So if you're contending with the OP, then you need to address what sustains the claim made in the linked thread, and I set out the relatively few posts you'd need to read, in order to be brought up to speed in the discussion. This is like a one-on-one debate discussion thread, the debate's over, and there was a winner, so if you want to discuss the topic of the thread, then read the debate. Please and thank you.

Can you ask the same question that was asked of him here? Or are you too lazy to make the argument? Please and thank you.
 

annabenedetti

Well-known member
In there are things that are probably made up by bishops somewhere

This is a problem, you realize?

Not believing in the Real Presence in the valid liturgy is what I'm calling the Protestant view in this thread. Both the Orthodox and Catholic churches have valid pastors so Orthodox and Catholic liturgy is valid, but the Protestant view rejects the Real Presence, and so the Protestant view doesn't see any substantial difference between the Orthodox and Catholic liturgies on the one hand, and Protestant liturgies (which even includes abstaining from any 'corporate worship services' at all) on the other.

I don't know how you came up with this idea, that a Protestant doesn't see any substantial difference.

So I guess you're basically a Protestant in this thread, and not a Catholic. :(

I've been a Catholic since I was a weeks-old baby. I don't need your imprimatur.

You may have a convert's zeal, but you're going about this in a way that's divisive.
 
Last edited:

Selaphiel

Well-known member
The debate is over. The Protestant view on communion is dead. And the Protestant view is your view, whether you want to face the reality that you are a Protestant.

Lutherans aren't protestants? Lutherans very much do believe in the real presence in the eucharist. What lutherans reject is transsubtantiation. Not because they deny the real presence, but because Luther rejected the reduction of the mystery of the eucharist to a rational explanation tied to a specific metaphysical conception of reality.
 
Top