Evidence for God from Science

johnt wrote:It is the first one. Every morsel is changed to His Body and every drop is His Blood.

That is a purely Catholic view - on which there is absolutely no biblical evidence for.

The last one i would choose.

Silvertusk wrote:That is a purely Catholic view - on which there is absolutely no biblical evidence for.

And where do you think Catholics got the idea? Did you at all read the link I provided, just for kicks? Humor me and read it, will ya? Please let me know where you disagree and why the TON of scriptural evidence given is unbiblical.

Byblos wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:That is a purely Catholic view - on which there is absolutely no biblical evidence for.

And where do you think Catholics got the idea? Did you at all read the link I provided, just for kicks? Humor me and read it, will ya? Please let me know where you disagree and why the TON of scriptural evidence given is unbiblical.

I am sorry there is nothing from Catholic dogma that is going to make me believe that we actually eat real flesh and blood. That is cannibalism, pure and simple. I look at the bible verses I beleive that Jesus wants us to do it in rememberance. And there is nothing in the bible that states that you have to do some ritual that transforms the bread and wine into flesh and blood. Nothing, Nadda, zip! That is purely a tradition of the catholic church. The only thing about the lords supper is in the verses below.

Matthew V26
26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

Mark 14

22While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body."
23Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it.
24"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them. 25"I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God."


Luke 22

14When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God."
17After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you. 18For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."
19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. 21But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. 22The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him." 23They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this.

Byblos wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:That is a purely Catholic view - on which there is absolutely no biblical evidence for.

And where do you think Catholics got the idea? Did you at all read the link I provided, just for kicks? Humor me and read it, will ya? Please let me know where you disagree and why the TON of scriptural evidence given is unbiblical.

And i did you read your link and to be honest, very little of it actually made any sense to me. And that is another things that annoys me, it is just like institutional religion (and i count anglican in this as well) to over complicated things with their traditions so as to elevate them higher than the common people. It is plain wrong. The lords supper to me was meant as a beautiful simple meal shared amongst people you love where you can remember the sacrifice that Jesus has made for you. It is just that. Immensely powerful, yet immensely simple. I hate the fact that you have to be confirmed in the Anglican church to partake in communion. Again it is an elitist attitude. I am sure Jesus never meant for you to undertake all this rituals just to sit with friends and remember him in a simple meal.

I am very sorry Byblos if I have offended you in this (please forgive me) That was not my intention at all. But I do feel strongly about this. The Traditions of the church - both Catholic and Anglican seem to me to alienate more people than give the impression that all are invited to partake the lords supper. Everyone is invited. You don't need to be confirmed, you don't need a ritual to change the bread to flesh and the wine to Blood, Everyone is invited and Jesus is already present.

Disclaimer: This is all purely my own opinion.

God Bless

Silvertusk.

Silvertusk wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:That is a purely Catholic view - on which there is absolutely no biblical evidence for.

And where do you think Catholics got the idea? Did you at all read the link I provided, just for kicks? Humor me and read it, will ya? Please let me know where you disagree and why the TON of scriptural evidence given is unbiblical.

And i did you read your link and to be honest, very little of it actually made any sense to me. And that is another things that annoys me, it is just like institutional religion (and i count anglican in this as well) to over complicated things with their traditions so as to elevate them higher than the common people. It is plain wrong. The lords supper to me was meant as a beautiful simple meal shared amongst people you love where you can remember the sacrifice that Jesus has made for you. It is just that. Immensely powerful, yet immensely simple. I hate the fact that you have to be confirmed in the Anglican church to partake in communion. Again it is an elitist attitude. I am sure Jesus never meant for you to undertake all this rituals just to sit with friends and remember him in a simple meal.

I am very sorry Byblos if I have offended you in this (please forgive me) That was not my intention at all. But I do feel strongly about this. The Traditions of the church - both Catholic and Anglican seem to me to alienate more people than give the impression that all are invited to partake the lords supper. Everyone is invited. You don't need to be confirmed, you don't need a ritual to change the bread to flesh and the wine to Blood, Everyone is invited and Jesus is already present.

Disclaimer: This is all purely my own opinion.

God Bless

Silvertusk.

Silvertusk,

I am never offended for having differences of opinion nor for others even seeing Catholicism negatively, doesn't bother me in the least. What offends me is a blanket statement like this one "on which there is absolutely no biblical evidence for" when the links I provide have nothing BUT scriptural support. Tell me you disagree with it; tell me you don't understand it; tell me it's a stretch because it doesn't mean this, it means that; tell me it's a matter of interpretation. But please do not tell me it's unbiblical; that offends me. What you see as ritualistic we see as a command handed down by Jesus himself. I have no issue with you seeing it the way you do even though I disagree with it. I may be wrong but I don't think it's too much to expect the same.

Byblos wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:That is a purely Catholic view - on which there is absolutely no biblical evidence for.

And where do you think Catholics got the idea? Did you at all read the link I provided, just for kicks? Humor me and read it, will ya? Please let me know where you disagree and why the TON of scriptural evidence given is unbiblical.

And i did you read your link and to be honest, very little of it actually made any sense to me. And that is another things that annoys me, it is just like institutional religion (and i count anglican in this as well) to over complicated things with their traditions so as to elevate them higher than the common people. It is plain wrong. The lords supper to me was meant as a beautiful simple meal shared amongst people you love where you can remember the sacrifice that Jesus has made for you. It is just that. Immensely powerful, yet immensely simple. I hate the fact that you have to be confirmed in the Anglican church to partake in communion. Again it is an elitist attitude. I am sure Jesus never meant for you to undertake all this rituals just to sit with friends and remember him in a simple meal.

I am very sorry Byblos if I have offended you in this (please forgive me) That was not my intention at all. But I do feel strongly about this. The Traditions of the church - both Catholic and Anglican seem to me to alienate more people than give the impression that all are invited to partake the lords supper. Everyone is invited. You don't need to be confirmed, you don't need a ritual to change the bread to flesh and the wine to Blood, Everyone is invited and Jesus is already present.

Disclaimer: This is all purely my own opinion.

God Bless

Silvertusk.

Silvertusk,

I am never offended for having differences of opinion nor for others even seeing Catholicism negatively, doesn't bother me in the least. What offends me is a blanket statement like this one "on which there is absolutely no biblical evidence for" when the links I provide have nothing BUT scriptural support. Tell me you disagree with it; tell me you don't understand it; tell me it's a stretch because it doesn't mean this, it means that; tell me it's a matter of interpretation. But please do not tell me it's unbiblical; that offends me. What you see as ritualistic we see as a command handed down by Jesus himself. I have no issue with you seeing it the way you do even though I disagree with it. I may be wrong but I don't think it's too much to expect the same.

Thanks Byblos.

But I am afraid this is my point - I do believe it is unbiblical. Because there is no mention of the tradition of converting the bread and wine to flesh and blood in the bible at all. This is what I mean when i say it is unbiblical. Just as when i mean that there is no mention in the bible on you needing to be confirmed before you take communion in the Anglican church. What you are referring to are traditions, pure and simple. Jesus did not command us to convert the bread into flesh and the blood into wine. Jesus did not command us to go through a ritual of confirmation before we take the lords supper. These are traditions.

The bapist church which i am a member of only follow the three things that they believed Jesus "commanded" - Baptism, communion in rememberance, and marriage. These things I feel are biblical.

Silvertusk.

Actually I am going to leave this thread because I do realise I am being stubborn here (a failing on my behalf, I realise) and unfortunately am not willing to budge on this issue because it is something that I feel so strongly about. So rather than cause any more offence I am going to quit while I am behind.

Silvertusk.

Silvertusk wrote:Actually I am going to leave this thread because I do realise I am being stubborn here (a failing on my behalf, I realise) and unfortunately am not willing to budge on this issue because it is something that I feel so strongly about. So rather than cause any more offence I am going to quit while I am behind.

Silvertusk.

I wish you wouldn't, really. I understand where you're coming from and now that you've clarified what you mean by "unbiblical" I do see your point. Believe me when I tell you there are no hard feelings; we both feel very strongly in what we believe and I am willing to have an in depth discussion with you on the topic (here or privately), not in an effort for either of us to convince the other (although that's also possible) but, as is always my goal, to shed some light on our respective positions so that at the end of the day we can still disagree but with a little more understanding. Please let me know if this is ok with you and if you're up to it. If not, I understand; no reflection on you either way.

I'm less concerned about what takes place with the elements than I am with what takes place in the heart of the communicant.

I think when Jesus says, "This is my body" and "This is my blood" that he is speaking metaphorically and not literally. He often did that when he made statements for example along the lines of gouging out eyes or cutting off hands. Other Brothers and Sisters in Christ see it differently. I'm fine with that.

That said, I don't believe anything physically happens with the elements. Spiritually, anything taking place is going to focus to my understanding on the heart and attitude of the communicant.

I think the value in communion whether it is celebrated daily, weekly, monthly or whatever else schedule it prepared is:

1. Obedience to the command of Christ to remember Him and his sacrifice in this manner.
2. A regular time of quiet reflection and a reminder of what our salvation cost and how serious sin is.
3. A time of confession and personal inventory in our relationships with one another and God.

I think those who focus on the elements are in danger of missing those points.

I also think those who argue strongly that it is only a symbol can miss the point as well and fail to attach the reverence and soul searching that Christ intended to attend this event. If a belief in the elements nature leads to that reverence and soul searching then I think that person has a better perspective and appreciation for the event than the one who may have an intellectual appreciation but just breezes through the sacrament but doesn't pause and allow the Spirit of God to minister to them and show them where they are treating the blood of Christ as a common thing in their day to day life.

So, intellectually, I suppose I hold to symbol only.

In practise however, I hold to more of a Real Presence if for no other reason than to remind me how important this sacrament is, or Christ would not have commanded us to observe it.

I for one am guilty of taking communion for granted.

FFC wrote:

I for one am guilty of taking communion for granted.

Me too obviously.

I will say this though with regard to my Friend Byblos. I respect your beliefs in this regard, while not completely agreeing with the standard doctrine. Protestants, of which I am one, in the historical separation from the Catholic Church have far too often in our overwhelming desire to separate and define ourselves differently, thrown out a great numberof babies with the bath-water.

I grew up Anglican and remember the pomp surrounding the Eucharist and while it could distract from and lose sight of the real meaning, at the same time, the focus and ceremony could also and I'm sure for many does make the points I tried to make early.

Some of the traditions we've done away with are finding their way back in many forms. I'm a big fan of Christian Counseling for example. I wonder how much of what we find in that area however is simply clinically representing what in the past was done in the confessional? Yes I think protestants were right to protest against the Church's representing in some cases and abusing that tradition to make the Church the intermediary instead of Christ, but how much healthier would the Church have been to maintain the accountibility even with the separation that took place?

I for one understand the need for clarity with response to doctrine. I think as protestants we could use a firm reminder from time to time that for all its shortcomings and abuses that the Catholic Church for a great majority of the time from Christ to now (about 3/4s of that time) was the primary organization that warts and all maintained doctrine and organizationally held christendom together in most of the world. God will judge us all on the basis of what we've done with the gift of his Son, Catholic and Protestant.

As Protestants we could stand at times I think to express our belief and be clear on that but consider too what practical benefits some of these practises gave and if we aren't perhaps poorer in some regards for not paying attention to some of these issues despite our opposition in principal.

I for one am glad Byblos is here and raising and dealing with these issues and I appreciate him.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I'm less concerned about what takes place with the elements than I am with what takes place in the heart of the communicant.

I think when Jesus says, "This is my body" and "This is my blood" that he is speaking metaphorically and not literally. He often did that when he made statements for example along the lines of gouging out eyes or cutting off hands. Other Brothers and Sisters in Christ see it differently. I'm fine with that.

That said, I don't believe anything physically happens with the elements. Spiritually, anything taking place is going to focus to my understanding on the heart and attitude of the communicant.

I think the value in communion whether it is celebrated daily, weekly, monthly or whatever else schedule it prepared is:

1. Obedience to the command of Christ to remember Him and his sacrifice in this manner.
2. A regular time of quiet reflection and a reminder of what our salvation cost and how serious sin is.
3. A time of confession and personal inventory in our relationships with one another and God.

I think those who focus on the elements are in danger of missing those points.

I also think those who argue strongly that it is only a symbol can miss the point as well and fail to attach the reverence and soul searching that Christ intended to attend this event. If a belief in the elements nature leads to that reverence and soul searching then I think that person has a better perspective and appreciation for the event than the one who may have an intellectual appreciation but just breezes through the sacrament but doesn't pause and allow the Spirit of God to minister to them and show them where they are treating the blood of Christ as a common thing in their day to day life.

So, intellectually, I suppose I hold to symbol only.

In practise however, I hold to more of a Real Presence if for no other reason than to remind me how important this sacrament is, or Christ would not have commanded us to observe it.

Well put!!

Literal or metaphorical? Walked on water and calmed the raging sea, gave sight to the blind, grew a new ear,allowed the lame to walk, raised others from the dead to include Himself, fed the masses with bread and fish and turned water into wine just to name a few. Literal or metaphorical? I'll save the bread to body and wine to blood question for Him when we meet face to face.

Canuckster1127 wrote: I for one am glad Byblos is here and raising and dealing with these issues and I appreciate him.

Me too

johnt wrote:Literal or metaphorical? Walked on water and calmed the raging sea, gave sight to the blind, grew a new ear,allowed the lame to walk, raised others from the dead to include Himself, fed the masses with bread and fish and turned water into wine just to name a few. Literal or metaphorical? I'll save the bread to body and wine to blood question for Him when we meet face to face.

If your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off? Literal of Metaphorical? Obviously both elements are present in Scripture.

The issue is one of intent within the specific passage, not a blanket hermeneutic to be applied to all passages. There's nothing inconsistent with seeing that passage as metaphorical as Jesus spoke to his disciples before the crucifixion and his body had not yet been broken and his blood not yet spilled out. He was looking forward and we are looking back.

I'm perfectly fine with saving that question for Him as well.

I suspect there will be people in Heaven who believed any number of things in terms of the elements in communion. I suspect God is more concerned with the attitude of our hearts in participating in communion than He is our belief as to the status of the elements.

I respect your belief in this regard. I simply disagree with it.