Re: Transubstantiation Error

in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Robin at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 6/10/03 9:00 pm:

> 
> "brachypodium" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> From: "Christopher Robin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online -- Northeast Ohio
>>> Newsgroups:
>>> 
> alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,alt.sci.phenomena.unusual,sci.psycholo
> gy
>>> .personality,sci.techniques.testing.misc
>>> Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 17:25:51 GMT
>>> Subject: Re: Transubstantiation Error
>>> 
>>> 
>>> "brachypodium" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cunneen)
>>>>> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>>>>> Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
>>>>> Date: 05 Oct 2003 08:44:04 GMT
>>>>> Subject: Re: Transubstantiation Error
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> What evidence is there that bread and wine are God, here, today? It
> is
>>>>>> insufficient to take 'God's word' for it, unless His words can be
> shown
>>> to
>>>>>> mean without doubt that bread and wine are God, or can be God. That
> has
>>>>>> never been done. So what practical tests can be applied to show that
>>> bread
>>>>>> and wine are, or can be, God? Suggestions are invited from any, but
> in
>>>>>> particular from accredited behavioural scientists, psychologists and
>>> workers
>>>>>> in related fields.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jesus' own words,<
>>>> 
>>>> Jesus did not make any statement that supports transubstantiation.
>>> Luke 22:19, Matthew 26:26, John 6:32-66, 1 Cor 10:16, 1 Cor 11:23-27<
>> 
>> You must be aware that I am aware of these verses; so I wonder why you
>> merely referenced them.
>> 
> I'm not sure you're aware of them at all, since you made that statement.
> Perhaps you meant that your interpretation of what Jesus said doesn't
> support Transubstantiation?  You claimed he made no statement that supports
> Transubstantiation, I gave you 3 places in the Gospels, as well as 2 in
> Paul's writings that appear to disagree with you.<

If you knew that they only appear to disagree, it was ingenuous of you to
give the impression that they did disagree.  All educated people are aware
that there is longstanding 'top level' disagreement about this, so if you
wish to take up the challenge seriously, rather than keep up the Catholic
'quote and run' tradition, you will need a lot more than mere references.
Are you merely hoping that there will be a reader who is unaware of this
major difference in beliefs? Is it only the gullible and their deceivers who
become Catholics?

Peter