When interpretting scripture you do it 1) Literally or, 2) Figurately, in that order. You have to look at what's being said and see which category it falls into.
Anyone who is able to inspect the host that the catholic religion uses as their "eucharist" both before and after the Mass is said will find that the composition of the wafer has not changed. I know, I've done it. Therefore to say your interpretation is correct is in fact false.
Since this is the case, your argument holds no water. That being the case you have to look at your Bible passages as figuratively. And see you conveniently misinterpreted Jesus own words when He says "Do this in remembrance of me." He's not asking us to actually consume His body, he's telling us to do this supper to remember His sacrifice, just like the Israelites had to remember the Passover in remembrance of their delivery from bondage in Egypt.
Sorry dude but your view of the scriptures falls in line with the other misteachings and false doctrines the so-called "Holy Church of God" spews out on a daily basis.
It's too bad too because the catholic church will have it's heyday here soon and will be able to form it's one-world church. But I'm not worried because Jesus Christ will allow the Anti-christ to destroy her for her many sins.
What we say happens to the bread has nothing whatsoever to do with the "composition" of it. The composition is what we would call an "accident", and the accidents, as a rule, remain unchanged.
I'm not saying this to persuade you or to justify our beliefs. But if you want to attack our beliefs it might help to know what they are.
When the doctrine of Transubstantiation was being developed, modern chemistry wasn't ever dreamed of. When modern Chemistry did arise (and interestingly, around the time that "subjective" and "objective" swapped meanings) the meaning of "substance" changed in popular and some technical language.
Do you enjoy or like C.S. Lewis? You may remember that in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader they meet a star on the last haven before they reach as far east as they can sail. Eustace says (quoting from memory here) "But in our world a star is a ball of flaming gas." The star replies, "Even in your world, that is not what a star is, but what it is made of."
That is a beginning of the question of substance in the old sense of what it IS, and in the new sense of what it is MADE OF.
Again, I'm not trying to persuade or anything, just trying to clarify. In general I would say that understanding our Eucharistic theology is VERY challenging indeed. Think of all the things we say about the presence of God and of Jesus. One might almost ask whether and why one might want to CONFINE the "Real Presence" of Our Lord to the Sacrament. Sometimes that seems as remarkable to me as asserting He is present there. Where is He NOT present. (No fair answering, "among you Catholics ....")
>> When interpretting scripture you do it 1) Literally or, 2) Figurately, in that order. <<
So what part of “This is my body” don’t you get? Your scriptural interpretation breaks down to:
1. Pick whatever verses appear to best make your argument.
2. If you come across a verse which plainly violates your modernist revisionism, simply scratch it off to a figurative reference.
>> Anyone who is able to inspect the host that the catholic religion uses as their “eucharist” both before and after the Mass is said will find that the composition of the wafer has not changed. I know, I’ve done it. Therefore to say your interpretation is correct is in fact false.
>> Anyone who is able to inspect the host that the catholic religion uses as their “eucharist” both before and after the Mass is said will find that the composition of the wafer has not changed. I know, I’ve done it. Therefore to say your interpretation is correct is in fact false. <<
The same reductivist argument could be used to deny the existence of your very soul. The body of Christ is mystical, but he, himself, has told us it is present.
>> remembrance... he’s telling us to do this supper to remember His sacrifice, <<
The word “remember” has been much changed. In modern times, “remember” has come to mean “recall.” But that’s not how it used to be. Think about the word: re-member. It means to become one with again. You “recall” an idea, but you “re-member” someone who is with you in spirit. Not that “re-member” always was used in such a profound way, but your notion that it means *merely* to call to mind something from the past is wholly false:
“But thou, O LORD, shalt endure for ever; and thy remembrance unto all generations.” Does this mean that the holy ones will only think of the Lord in the past?
“the desire of [our] soul [is] to thy name, and to the remembrance of thee.” Does this mean that the holy ones only long to think back about the Lord?
>>Sorry dude but your view of the scriptures falls in line with the other misteachings and false doctrines the so-called “Holy Church of God” spews out on a daily basis. <<
For 1500 years, there was no other Church that the Catholic Church. All Protestant churches are formed out of modernist rebellions against the body of Christ. Even in the definition of the word translated as “church (ecclesia) you rebel against literal translation: you hold it to mean some mystical bond, when the word, in fact, means “gathering.” You protestants gather together, and then declare that the sinners in your midst aren’t really “gathered” with you, but somehow the people down the street who you agree with are “gathered” with you. Nonsense.