The all-in-one Christian Web Site Community - Praize.com
Skip to Content

your views....are wanted....thanks

Quote Reply
your views....are wanted....thanks
What are your views on transubstantiation? - I have always been interested in this topic....i debate my catholic friends just for kicks.
Quote Reply
Re: your views....are wanted....thanks In reply to
bi the way, transubstantiation is the name for when the catholic priest says the "magic words"(excuse me) and the host is turned into Christ's body.
Quote Reply
Re: your views....are wanted....thanks In reply to
Deborah,

I've posted in response to you on the Christian debates forum and would love to discuss the issue. Hope to see your comments. May God richly bless you.
Quote Reply
Re: your views....are wanted....thanks In reply to
 Tran-sub-stan-ti-a-tion ; the conversion of the whold substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, only the appearance of bread and wine remaining (R.H.W.C.Dictionary)

If this is to be true than it's ok to eat one another , If we can eat the body of christ .... Which i don't believe to be so .

The Christ was only letting us know, that he would die for us , to never forget .. To remember him in this way ...
Quote Reply
Re: your views....are wanted....thanks In reply to
Soylent Green.



Quote Reply
Re: [the ROCK...is Jesus :)] your views....are wanted....thanks In reply to
Ancient chemists often were convinced they might change lead into gold, too. That theory really needs to be updated. I would entertain discussion on this if someone will talk it in their own words and use scriptures in context to support their ideas.

Jim
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men.....DG
Quote Reply
Re: [dovegiven] your views....are wanted....thanks In reply to
Transubstantiation is just an extreme form of 'Biblical Literalism' which sought to impose upon the flock the notion that their salvation depended upon the words of a Priest and that it was essential to their eternal souls to believe they partook of the actual body and blood of Christ.

Some church authorities still want us to take every scripture literally. They seem to doubt that ordinary people are capable of understanding the symbolic significance of scripture.

They say that what looks like wine, tastes like wine and smells like wine is in fact no longer wine because their interpretation of scripture says so.

If you can get people to believe that then you can get people to believe just about anything, much to the advantage of a "Church" that was, at the time, quite corrupt.

Regards Chris.
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: Oct 4, 2011, 3:47 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] your views....are wanted....thanks In reply to
Some church authorities still want us to take every scripture literally. They seem to doubt that ordinary people are capable of understanding the symbolic significance of scripture.

Most scriptures are to be taken literally, there being no higher purpose in assuming some typology is involved, while a very minor part of the scriptures have obvious symbolic meanings. When that happens it is typically plainly obvious, such as a human being labelled a "dog". I've never heard a preacher claim some humans are literally canines, for instance. I'm sad to learn you have preachers around you like that.

Jim

·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men.....DG
Quote Reply
Re: [dovegiven] your views....are wanted....thanks In reply to
Dovegiven : Hi

I'm sad to learn you have preachers around you like that.

I don't. I was referring to the self-styled 'experts' in Biblical interpretation who insist upon a literal reading of the meaning of all scripture. All except, that is, the bits that they decide are not to be understood that way, from 'extreme Protestant Puritan' to extreme R. Catholic there is no shortage of Biblical exegetes purveying their 'understanding' of the Infallible, Irrefutable truth of God's Word, (as they see it) to us poor souls who are supposedly, (according to them), incapable of reading and understanding it for ourselves.

One can hardly blame the RC Church for insisting that "This is my blood" should be taken as literally as ""And God said,
"Let there be light . . . . . . and there was evening and morning one day".

In both cases some man decides what should be figuratively understood and what is literally 'the truth'.

And I say some man because in neither the RC Church or the Conservative Evangelical wing of the Protestant Church does a Woman Exegete get the chance to decide what scripture means so as to teach her revellation to men. And all because of Biblical literalism.

By the literalist interpretive way of thinking the R.C. church with it's literal belief in transubstatiation is literally holding to the truth as is clearly written in scripture, over against the likes of me, (and presumably you also), who see this statement of Jesus to be entirely figurative in meaning.

In my opinion Transubstantiation is a good example of where unbridled Biblical literalism gets you. It means the one who 'believes' that way often as not misses the point completely when trying to understand the scriptures.

I will repeat, "If you can get them to believe in Transubstatiation you can get them to believe anything, even that the Universe and Earth was made in 6 twenty four hour days.

Regards Chris.


In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: Oct 5, 2011, 12:29 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] your views....are wanted....thanks In reply to
By the literalist interpretive way of thinking the R.C. church with it's literal belief in transubstatiation is literally holding to the truth as is clearly written in scripture, over against the likes of me, (and presumably you also), who see this statement of Jesus to be entirely figurative.

Yes, that is one of the obvious figurative declarations of scripture. They are here and there, confounding the ignorant. Do you think I wrote that all scripture is to be taken literally? I don't think I did that. I say take all of it literally until it is obvious it is figurative. If what you think is figurative yet is supported elsewhere in scriptures as to be literal, then take it literally. Here's an example:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I take that one to quite literally say that whatever is invisible of God is clearly seen and understood by observing His creation, like when the men saw Jesus, they saw the Father. There is no difference between Jesus and the Father, as they are One, yet distinct co-existent Persons of the Godhead. Yet each has His own ministry and attributes. Mystery? It shouldn't be. Missing that perspective is without excuse. See the invisible things of God. They are invisible to those not looking to see God, who ignore the testimony of His creation. That includes anyone that takes the modern secular notion of evolution in any manner of saying, compromising the infallible Word of God as recorded in the Bible. Nature testifies to creation week and of course the flood of Noah. Jesus endorsed the flood very literally, saying He would come like the flood came unexpectedly. Nothing figurative about that, right? Wink The New Testament also endorsed the Genesis creation account by saying in Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. No room for figurative language there either, right? Either Luke was wrong or Adam was in fact directly of God, not of nature, created in His image and likeness, not evolved from a common ancestor of apes. Adam wasn't created in the image of some invisible non-existent ape-like "ancestor", either, like some would have us believe differently from what Paul so aptly discussed several times. Yes, it could get confusing for folks not paying attention to details. I won't let unbelievers detour me in compromise, so am very careful about figurative interpretations that defy God's word.

Blessings to all that seek the Truth,
Jim

·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men.....DG

Last edited by:

dovegiven: Oct 5, 2011, 1:41 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] your views....are wanted....thanks In reply to
Take a look at Mt 26:28 using a nice tool to see the Greek, at the free http://www.greekbible.com/index.php

(text not supported here)

It takes a bit of work to transliterate those if you want to learn some Greek.
Next, click on each word on their page to get a brief lexical definition less accents. Doing that leaves me very comfortable the doctrine is wrong. For more detail there are more internet resources that are much more convenient than the old standbys, like the Strong's Concordance. Mine is 3" thick and quite old, the pages becoming brittle, both of us aging Frown This is much faster than manual. A more detailed tool is at http://www.searchgodsword.org/...view.cgi?number=3778

Blessings to all seekers of the Truth
Jim

·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men.....DG

Last edited by:

dovegiven: Oct 6, 2011, 1:12 PM