[boatbums]

So transubstantiation is not an issue, then. Too bad that someone saw fit to add Thomas’ testimony down to a couple of fine details when they were graciously provided by the Risen Messiah at the point where belief and salvation by faith was the central issue. Hmmmm.

Yes, I think it is an "issue" because we know that the RC doctrine of Transubstantiation goes much deeper than just the idea of what the bread and wine of the observance of the Lord's Supper "become" or represent. They teach that ONLY their priests can "confect" the substances and reception of them is salvific and the only way to obey the command of Jesus:

“Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” (John 6:53-58)

There are other views concerning the "real presence" of Jesus in the observance (i.e.; Consubstantiation, metaphor, etc.) that don't take it to that level. In the case of the RC view, it becomes a critical disagreement over the gospel of salvation. My point was that where Scripture is not exact, dogmatic statements based upon conjecture, opinion or developed dogma shouldn't be argued to the point of angry and hateful un-Christian attitudes or accusations of heresy.

[imardmd1]

Thank you for your observation, BB. It is the perfect example of how one should deport themselves in a rational, respectful, and courteous way.

To me, the core issue was not so much what the debate points were ( although they were not negligible), it was how they were presented, one side of which was not very responsive or sticking to the point.

Regarding the whole exchange, I enjoyed the chance to apply proper hermeneutics to the matter, and see what others did with it. If someone becomes angry, it is without further need to discuss that the person who is upset has made oneself that way. To blame it on someone else for one's emotional state only says that such a person has no control over their own spirit, but wants to blame others for the ill feelings.

I'm not angry or miffed. Are You? I would guess probably not. If anyone would prefer to spend more time involved in basic evangelization, I would say to do that.