'Body Of Christ" Returned To Church After Student Receives Email Threats

WFTV ^ | July 7, 2008

[Mrs. Don-o]

"..alter the physics of the door to all simple human flesh to pass through!!!"

So, instead of Jesus being miraculous, you'd say Jesus was as unmiraculous as Joe Sixpack, but the door was miraculous?

Hey--- uh, yeah! I get it now! Portals! Multiple universes! Narnia!

Bye--- and good luck with that door.

[Petronski]

Repeating the same mantra over and over doesn’t address how the Lord can be Incarnate and have omnipresent flesh.

I did not claim the Lord has/had omnipresent flesh. But I did provide an answer to your question.

[Lord_Calvinus]

***I’ll go with that.***

Go with whatever you want to believe regarding the conception and birth of the Lord. However, when you say that he was fully human, you may not attribute omnipresence to his flesh without destroying the attribution of HUMAN flesh.

Therefore, you have a huge problem with your doctrine.

[Lord_Calvinus]

***Human flesh present everywhere? No. There’d be no room for anything else.***

And, yet, if you apply that definition of omnipresence to divinity, then your toilet is God. What does that say?

Now, back to the weaving and dodging of how human flesh can be omnipresent....

[Lord_Calvinus]

***So, instead of Jesus being miraculous, you’d say Jesus was as unmiraculous as Joe Sixpack, but the door was miraculous?***

I merely gave a logical alternative to a logical argument and made no specific claim to exactly what happened. Nor does NOT making the alteration of flesh mean that Jesus is “unmiraculous.” It is NOT a logical necessity.

***Hey-— uh, yeah! I get it now! Portals! Multiple universes! Narnia!

Bye-— and good luck with that door.***

I realize your frustration with attempting to explain the omnipresence of human flesh, but sarcasm doesn’t help. It only reveals that you have no argument.

[Lord_Calvinus]

***I did not claim the Lord has/had omnipresent flesh.***

The moment you assert that the Lord’s flesh is present in multiple locations simultaneously, you make the claim of the divine attribution of omnipresence to his flesh.

So, yes, you did.

[steve86]

There is the possibility that humans (regular ones, like you and me) are not always constrained by the physical laws of the universe. An example might be a valid case of telepathy (assuming it is not as an-yet undiscovered physical law that permits that; I don’t think it is), or miracle healing powers, which some individuals, Saints and otherwise, have seemed to possess. One way of looking at this is that the powers are “borrowed from God”. This does not make those special individuals non-human, nor did Jesus’ miraculous acts render Him not “truly incarnate”. There is no fallacy in the Catholic position.

[Petronski]

The moment you assert that the Lord’s flesh is present in multiple locations simultaneously, you make the claim of the divine attribution of omnipresence to his flesh.

Omni means all, not some. I never claimed His flesh is present in all places. If it were, as I said, there would be no space anywhere else.

What you so crassly dismissed as a mantra is where this is explained for you.

[Petronski]

If you do not believe God is present in the bathroom, I cannot help you.

[Marysecretary]

Denominations don’t matter. The Body of Christ transcends denominations.

[Petronski]

Denominations don’t matter.

Again, you brought it up.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I never said Christ’s flesh was omnipresent.

[Petronski]

I never said Christ’s flesh was omnipresent.

It can't be.
Where would we park?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Once again, I never said Christ's flesh was omnipresent. Christ did say he bread He was holding in His hand was His Body, which I find inexplicable (as I said before).

St. Paul said "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" Thus we speak not of the "omnipresence" of Christ's flesh, but its quite narrowly localized presence under the appearance of bread and wine. (Pay attention.) Although God is everywhere, this "omnipresent flesh" argument which you insisted on inventing, imputing to me, and then refuting, is going nowhere.

I did say "Bye." Check thou it out.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well said.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Ha! No, no, no, I won't tell that joke about the transcendentalist who found himself the parking garage.

---

You're quite welcome.

[DWC]

Some people need a representation to pray. If that's the case who am I to question how they reflect and give thanks. To each his own. But no one should feel they believe or worship better than another.

[Centurion2000]

It is not a piece of bread after it has been consecrated. It is the Body of Christ.

So what does it taste like? Pork, Beef, some other meat?

Is this human flesh that can be demonstrated as a meat product or is it the Body of Christ only in belief?

It's a ritual. Admittedly a holy Catholic ritual but it is not flesh.

Believe what you want of course, but people on this thread are busy threatening violence over a wafer/cracker/piece of bread. That bothers a lot of Protestants, especially one like me. You believe it's the body of Christ, cool. But the penalties for stealing a piece of bread/cracker/wheat product are on par with fanatic muslims.

Now if you can validate that it literally turns into divine human flesh with a DNA check, sign me up. If you detect hemoglobin in your wine, same thing. Until then it's a Catholic ritual not absolute fact. I got dinged yesterday for being a little belligerent. Fine. This is a factual rebuttal.

[Petronski]

If you want to know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

On the other hand, if you do NOT want to know, I will not have wasted anymore of my time explaining it.