Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
The Catholics persisted in the habit longer.
To extrapolate the Lord's Supper into alchemy (which is precisely what the word "transubstantiation" implies) is to bestow on the "priestly" class a distinction never given them in Scripture -- an ability to literally change bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ.Alchemy is really just Aritotelian chemistry, if you will. The fundamental difference between alchemy and modern chemistry is that the basis of alchemy is a qualitative (hot/cold/wet/dry) change of elements, whereas the basis of modern chemistry is a quantitive (weight) change of elements. In either case, the method involves adding different materials together to produce a change.
Nothing is added to the bread and wine at consecration. Transubstantiation is not a chemical process.
Longer and worse and dirtier and just all around positively Babylonian!
more like Assyrian
Right!
But "Come out of Assyria!" doesn't have the same ring to it.
:)
Though one could argue, Nebuchadnezzar is no easier to pronounce than Tiglath Pileser
Some habits are just SO hard to break, y'know? You got your stake, your marshmallows, your heretic ... what could seem more natural?
LOL!
"The problem is in tracing these various groups because they were decentralized in their church government"
Baptists don't keep lists and if we did, we wouldn't share them 'cause other Baptists would steal (borrow) them.
What do you mean we don't keep lists? Why, some churches have current membership lists stretching to the early 1800S!
Those are just virtual lists made up of dead people, dead beats, and dead heads so that when the pastors get together they can brag about something, find out who is paying their tithes and offerings or when they get into trouble it will be impossible to get a quorum since they can't find the people. Actually, Baptists don't have official lists; they are moved to come together by the Spirit,like "the wind bloweth where it listeth and thou hearest.....," especially when there is food available or an argument to be had.
Lutherans burn their heretics at pot-luck dinners.
Keeps the lutefisk warm.
tsk tsk. Poor totally culturally depraved peoples.
Until you've heard Kumbaya sung in Latin, you just haven't heard it.
Actually, many have been quickened.
"Actually, many have been quickened."
Yeah, but that's only to find the door when they've been asked to serve on a board or committee.
"Whatchoo talkin bout Willis? Committees and boards R Us!
You must be one of them "high" church Baptists that pay their janitors and choir directors and rewards board and committee members with parking spaces in front of the church and pews in the back for easy access to the rest rooms. I bet they don't even allow coffee in the sanctuary for fear it might spill on the mauve colored shag rug.
No one is talking about the two natures of the Word incarnate being "mixed". Even in normal parlance, when a baby is conceived is that spoken of as a mixture or as a union? The answer is clear. It appears you are saying that it is beyond God's capability to supernaturally "unite" with Mary's egg (while keeping the natures distinct) in the way we are saying. No, that's impossible. However, it is fully possible for God to zap a baby into Mary's Immaculate Incubator.
Not only that, but God can somehow take Mary's nature and flesh (or something) and be united, but NOT mixed in the person of Christ. How does this happen so as to meet all the definitions correctly? Magic, of course. When you distinguish between "union" and "mixture", magic is a very useful ally indeed. :)
Christ took on Mary's humanity using her flesh. The rest is an enigma. Mary's flesh had two female genes: that of her mother and that of her father's mother. Obviously, the enfleshment of the Word was not incumbent on her genetics. It was her humanity, her human nature, that the Lord assumed.
If the rest is an enigma, then what does "using her flesh" mean? How did it constitute a union, but not a mixture? Is all of this a roundabout way to give Mary credit for Jesus' sinlessness?
Just as Adam did not need human genes to become human, neither did the Word need human genetics to become human. He used Mary's flesh in order to become related to humanity, Abraham and Adam, as well as David and fulfill the prophesy.
Related to humanity means "but not fully human". This makes Jesus' humanity a sham, does it not?
What do you mean Adam did not need human genes to become human? What did Adam use instead to become human? :) Did Adam not have fully normal DNA? What would you say to the idea that Adam did not become human, but rather God created Adam human with fully human genes? Am I way out in left field here? :) Adam's creation was a true "zapping" in this sense. God created every physical thing from scratch (dust). Adam also had no prophesy to meet. If you say that the human body of Jesus was created in the same way, then that makes Mary a surrogate.
I showed you scripture that clearly and in context supports my position; and I explained why yours is stretching the context of that verse in Ephesians, and the discourse on circumcision in Galatians and works for reward in Romans. Which part of that do you consider spin?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.