Re: Transubstantiation Error

in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Robin
at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 8/10/03 7:25 pm:

> 
> "brachypodium" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Robin
>> at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 8/10/03 2:16 pm:
>> 
>>> 
>>> "brachypodium" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher
> Robin
>>>> at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 8/10/03 12:34 pm:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> "brachypodium" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>> in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher
>>> Robin
>>>>>> at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 7/10/03 9:00 pm:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> "brachypodium" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>> in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], brachypodium at
>>>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 7/10/03 9:44 am:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 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<
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Erratum: that should be 'disingenuous'.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yet you were the one who claimed Jesus made no such statement.<
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Why the 'yet'?
>>>>> 
>>>>> YOu don't understand the English language?<
>>>> 
>>>> Yes; as well as you. Now where is your answer?
>>>> 
>>> Apparently not as well as me if you can't comprehend the usage of 'yet'
>>> there.<
>> 
>> I'm sure everyone who understands English much understands that you would
>> like to imply that I am lying; but you never seem to be able to actually
>> produce a lie of mine!
>> 
>>>>> Have you yet shown my claim to be that of a liar?<
>>>> 
>>>> Where is your answer?
>>>> 
>>> Right below:<
>> 
>> How do those verses make me a liar? Now's your big chance!
>> 
>>>>> Yep...  1 Cor 10:16, 1 Cor 11:23-27, Luke 22:19, Matthew 26:26, John
>>> 6:32-66
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Will you ever?
>>>>> See above.<
>>>> 
>>>> See above.
>>>> 
>>>>>> Is this what transubstantiation does for people? I have not put up
>>>>>> verses and then admitted that I did so knowing that they do not
> support
>>>>> me!
>>>>>> 
>>>>> I have put up verses that do not support you.<
>>>> 
>>>> That is a matter of opinion.
>>> Which is the point of this - you claimed Jesus said nothing that
> supports
>>> Transubstantiation.  I provided verses that DO appear to support it.<
>> 
>> There is a a very big difference, as everyone who knows the Bible is
> aware.

> Yep<

So you admit to, in effect, telling a lie. That seems to knock the
transubstantiation idea on the head, unless of course you are not a regular
at mass.

>... and you claimed Jesus didn't say anything in support of
> Transubstantiation.<

And you say that my claim is a lie, but you have declined to prove it. More
accusation, more silence when it comes to backing it up.

As no one has made the slightest attempt to prove otherwise, it seems rather
likely that this claim is true! How many Catholics are there? And not one
can be found to come here and make a decent argument? They just send a boy
to throw in silly lies and run away.

> So, the issue is your INTERPRETATION of what Jesus
> said, not what Jesus actually said...<

We are not all fundamentalists! Jesus did not say explicitly that
transubstantiation takes place or does not take place, so this has to be a
matter of interpretation. You have already admitted that what Jesus said
only appears to justify transubstantiation. You agreed too that there can be
a very big difference between what appears to be true, and what is true, in
the Bible, so you have no excuse at all now. Presumably you present this
desperate lie again because you know that you cannot prove substantiation.

Peter