Your comment: “All the RCC extra Biblical doctrine of transubstantiation etc. stem from pagan roots of Isis/Osiris Baal and Dagon and and and... “
You are clueless, the Sacrament of the Eucharist was given to us by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper. It was passed down to Catholics through Sacred Tradition before Scriptures were written and continues as the summit and source of our Christian life.
Perhaps since you reject the words of the Eucharist that we need to eat and drink Christ’s Body and Blood for our salvation, then you might want to examine the scientific evidence that is available:
The consecrated host has been examined by independent scientists and determined that the consecrated host is living stressed heart muscle tissue,myocardial left ventricle, arteries, veins, branch vagus nerve, fresh and living Blood type AB, universal receiver, no Y chromosome, white blood cells (that normally die after death).
Do a google search and you might find evidence of God’s Truth that unbelievers reject. Jesus is alone in the sanctuary, go visit a Catholic Church and keep Him company.
Npoe, I accept the scriptures in their entirety. And adhere to the Truth, He is Way to Life with the Father.
Why don’t you post a link. I’ll read it and get back to you.
“ It was passed down to Catholics through Sacred Tradition before Scriptures were written
Yet never in writing before 100 ad... not in scripture, secular writings, contemporary art, etc.
Peculiar, if it were true.
“the Sacrament of the Eucharist was given to us by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper”.
Well, you are correct in some degree: Jesus indeed commanded the disciples to remember Him and broke bread and blessed the cup at the last supper. St. Paul confirms and reiterates it as well in several passages. Bread and Wine in remembrance of His death and sufferings, one to atone for our sins and the other to heal our bodies. I find no evidence of living blood and human tissue in the bible, but I do in archaic writings of ancient pagans.
“It was passed down to Catholics through Sacred Tradition before Scriptures were written and continues as the summit and source of our Christian life”
Hmm. That poses a problem to Believers, as Jesus IS the WORD of God and His Word suffices and exceeds any need.
“Perhaps since you reject the words of the Eucharist that we need to eat and drink Christ’s Body and Blood for our salvation”
Again, completely mistaking a scripture passage wherein Jesus, early in His ministry, made that statement and all but a few of His followers departed and ceased following. The passage is about what Jesus said in John 6:53 after His declaration about eating His flesh and drinking His blood: “The Spirit gives life! The flesh counts for nothing. The Words I have spoken are Spirit and they are life!”
Earlier He stated in v. 32 & 33: “I tell you the truth. it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world”.
So, Jesus is speaking about being the Bread from Heaven, which gives life eternal. Now, what is life eternal but the reduction and removal of the wall of separation from God due to sin? Jesus clearly is talking about paying the sin debt and suffering for it. His flesh and Blood as a substitutionary payment for my sin and my fallen flesh. To infer that the eating and drinking is literal is to ignore the tone of the scripture and the entire promise of God—That a debt has to be paid because God is Righteous ad Holy and Jesus, God in man’s flesh and blood would be the payment in full.
Secret “pre scriptural” arguments are why I left the RCC at a fairly young age when I tasted and saw the goodness of God! I indeed ate the Bread from Heaven and was saved, body and soul and given a regenerated spirit by which I can call out to God “Abba” ( Daddy)! In this world I am a powerful robust experience man who stands firmly for principles of life liberty and freedom, but in Gods economy I am a child, a son of 59 years young ( 41 in Christ) needing a guiding hand each day, while my mind is being renewed. Wonderful!
Finally, Jesus sits on the right hand of the Throne of GOD in heaven. He needs his heart, He is a living soul in a glorified body, He was alive, was dead and lives for evermore! Praise HIM! Hear ye HIM!
Blessing in Christ, although we disagree on some critical points, Peace.
I will not comment on Isis/Osiris Baal and Dagon, however we do have this testimony:
Supposing one gains spiritual life by literally eating human flesh and blood is akin to pagan endocannibalism, and is not Scriptural. Alpers and Lindenbaum’s research conclusively demonstrated that kuru [neurological disorder] spread easily and rapidly in the Fore people due to their endocannibalistic funeral practices, in which relatives consumed the bodies of the deceased to return the “life force” of the deceased to the hamlet, a Fore societal subunit. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%...9#Transmission The controversial "Golden Bough" by Sir James George Frazer (1854–1941) reports (regardless of some of his conclusions): The custom of eating bread sacramentally as the body of a god was practised by the Aztecs before the discovery and conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards." The May ceremony is thus described by the historian Acosta: “The Mexicans in the month of May made their principal feast to their god Vitzilipuztli, and two days before this feast, the virgins whereof I have spoken (the which were shut up and secluded in the same temple and were as it were religious women) did mingle a quantity of the seed of beets with roasted maize, and then they did mould it with honey, making an idol...all the virgins came out of their convent, bringing pieces of paste compounded of beets and roasted maize, which was of the same paste whereof their idol was made and compounded, and they were of the fashion of great bones. They delivered them to the young men, who carried them up and laid them at the idol’s feet, wherewith they filled the whole place that it could receive no more. They called these morsels of paste the flesh and bones of Vitzilipuztli. ...then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god....then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god... And this should be eaten at the point of day, and they should drink no water nor any other thing till after noon: they held it for an ill sign, yea, for sacrilege to do the contrary:...and then they gave them to the people in manner of a communion, beginning with the greater, and continuing unto the rest, both men, women, and little children, who received it with such tears, fear, and reverence as it was an admirable thing, saying that they did eat the flesh and bones of God, where-with they were grieved. Such as had any sick folks demanded thereof for them, and carried it with great reverence and veneration.” ...They believed that by consecrating bread their priests could turn it into the very body of their god, so that all who thereupon partook of the consecrated bread entered into a mystic communion with the deity by receiving a portion of his divine substance into themselves. The doctrine of transubstantiation, or the magical conversion of bread into flesh, was also familiar to the Aryans of ancient India long before the spread and even the rise of Christianity. The Brahmans taught that the rice-cakes offered in sacrifice were substitutes for human beings, and that they were actually converted into the real bodies of men by the manipulation of the priest. ...At the festival of the winter solstice in December the Aztecs killed their god Huitzilopochtli in effigy first and ate him afterwards. - http://www.bartleby.com/196/121.html There are some differences, but these have more in common with the Catholic idea of the Eucharist than anything seen in Scripture interpretive of the words of the last supper.
You are clueless, the Sacrament of the Eucharist was given to us by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper. It was passed down to Catholics through Sacred Tradition before Scriptures were written and continues as the summit and source of our Christian life.
That alone relegates your "Real Presence" to a belief built upon sand, for its rests upon the false foundation of Catholic oral tradition and thus "sola ecclesia," while the reality is that while men such as the apostles could speak and write as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, neither which even Rome presumes its popes and ecumenical councils do.
Moreover, God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;
And as is abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11).
Thus, rather than an infallible magisterium being required to for writings to be established as being from God, a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") " even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 1828, etc.)
Under the alternative of sola ecclesia, one can only assume that what their church teaches as oral tradition includes the teachings Paul referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and which assurance is being based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which itself comes from so-called tradition.
None of the few Greek words in 1 Timothy 3:15 ("church living God pillar and ground the truth" teach that the magisterial office of the church is supreme over Scripture, and both words for “pillar” and “ground” of the truth denote support (apostles were called “pillar”). And Scripture itself and most of it came before the church, and was built upon its prophetic and doctrinal foundation. And thus the appeal to it in establishing the authority of teaching by the church.
Questions for those who argue for the alternative of :sola ecclesia.
1. What is God's manifest most reliable permanent means of preserving what He told man as well as what man does: oral transmission or writing?
2. What became the established supreme authoritative source for testing Truth claims: oral transmission or "it is written/Scripture?"
3. Which came first: the written word of God and an authoritative body of it, or the NT church?
4. Did the establishment of a body of wholly inspired authoritative writings require an infallible magisterium?
5. Which transcendent sure source was so abundantly invoked by the Lord Jesus and NT church in substantiating her claims to the nation that was the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation: oral transmission or writing?
6. Was the veracity of Scripture subject to testing by the oral words of men or vice versa?
7. Do Catholic popes and councils speak or write as wholly inspired of God in giving His word like as men such as apostles did, and also provide new public revelation thereby?
8. In the light of the above, do you deny that only Scripture is the supreme, wholly inspired-of-God substantive and authoritative word of God, and the most reliable record and supreme source on what the NT church believed?
9. Do you think sola scripture must mean that only the Bible is to be used in understanding what God says?
10. Do you think the sufficiency aspect of sola scripture must mean that the Bible formally provides everything needed for salvation and growth in grace, including reason, writing, ability to discern, teachers, synods, etc. or that this sufficiency refers to Scripture as regards it being express Divine revelation, and which formally and materially provides for what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace?
11. What oral source has spoken to man as wholly inspired the public express word of God outside Scripture since the last book was penned?
12. Where in Scripture is a magisterium of men promised ensured perpetual infallibility of office whenever it defines as a body a matter of faith or morals for the whole church?
13. Does being the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of express Divine revelation mean that such possess that magisterial infallibility?
14. What is the basis for your assurance that your church is the one true apostolic church? The weight of evidence for it or because the church who declared it asserts she it cannot err in such a matter?
Wrong and deceptive, since that claim can only refer to unverified (some claimed names, testimonies, but I find no original source documentation) assertions of claimed Eucharistic miracles (5 by my count), with bleeding hosts being the closest things to what the body of Christ should look if you take the words of consecration literally, but which is contrary to Eucharistic theology. The
The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone..." (Summa Theologica; 75:1) Thus "If you took the consecrated host to a laboratory it would be chemically shown to be bread, not human flesh." (Dwight Longenecker, "Explaining Transubstantiation") They taste like bread and wine; they look like bread and wine; they would, if made to react chemically or placed in a mass spectrograph, behave in every way just as bread and wine do. (Stephen M. Barr; https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/05/does-quantum-physics-render-transubstantiation-meaningless)
Therefore purported "Eucharistic miracles" are not consistent with what the Real Presence via transubstantiation means. Francis Clark, S.J. states that Thomas Aquinas (a "doctor of the church"), considered the issue of such purported miraculous manifestations of the physical flesh of Christ in the hosts and explained that what appeared on those occasions:
could not be the real flesh and blood of Christ, for such a possibility was excluded by the nature of transubstantiation and of Christ’s sacramental presence ; but they were miraculous representations produced by divine power as tokens to direct men’s thoughts to, and to strengthen their belief in, the true flesh and blood of Christ invisibly present under the Eucharistic species. When Catholic theologians today discuss such miracles they are rightly very cautious about the question of fact, which, they point out, must be examined with rigorous canons of historical criticism in each particular instance ; on the doctrinal question they teach that in any such apparitions it is not the true blood or tissue of Christ that appears, but, as St Thomas held, a representative sign caused by divine power ('Bleeding hosts' and Eucharistic theology, Francis Clark, S.J., p. 219-20,22)
Futhermore it is imagined that that at the moment of the completion of the words of consecration by the priest (and only by ordained priests) then the bread and wine no longer exist, while the "Real Presence" of Christ's body that these elements are changed into (which change is said to be occur outside of time) only exists until the bread or wine - which again, are held to no longer exist - begin to decompose, as Aquinas affirms (Summa theologiae, III, q. 77, a. 6) as well as others: "The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ." (CCC 1377; Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1641) "...that is, until the Eucharist is digested, physically destroyed, or decays by some natural process." (The Holy Eucharist BY Bernard Mulcahy, O.P., p. 32) Thus persons with celiac disease can suffer adverse effects to the non-existent gluten in the Eucharistic host) and wine (which one could get drunk on in sufficient quantity) takes place (as with mold, digestion, etc.), in which case "Christ has discontinued His Presence therein." (Catholic Encyclopedia>The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist)
Meanwhile the appearance of the Christ of Scripture always corresponded to what He physically became in the incarnation, and never as an inanimate object, while the idea of Christ bodily appearing with a body which did not correspond to what He physically became is heretical. Thus the emphasis on the manifest physicality of the true Christ of Scripture in contrast to a docetist Christ or gnostic Christ of the anti/alterchrist spirit whose manifest appearance did not correspond to what He physically was.
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life," (1 John 1:1)
"This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth." (1 John 5:6)
"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." (1 John 4:2-3)
In post 423 I responded to and refuted ADSUM's response to the statement in the first sentence above, but since I had only quoted the first sentence in her(?) response then she sent me a FReepmail response protesting this since she seems to think someone may think the offering charge was from her.
In response I stated that in hindsight I see that I could and should have put in brackets "Your [Manly Warrior] comment," and would issue a clarification to her reply, though I think the chances of anyone thinking she made the statement she find offensive is small.
Thus to confirm, ADSUM did not make the comment: “All the RCC extra Biblical doctrine of transubstantiation etc. stem from pagan roots of Isis/Osiris Baal and Dagon" and which she protested against, of which protest I later included in my response in post 423.