Re: Transubstantiation Error

brachypodium wrote:
> 
> in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], vince garcia at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/10/03 5:24 pm:
> 
> > brachypodium wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I would not worry yourself about that; your faith is all in fairytales
> >> anyway. But I note that when it comes to attesting the origin of the so
> >> called churches you espouse, the evidence can be just hearsay! At least you
> >> provide a smile or two.
> >>
> >> Peter
> >
> > Ah, so now we have the core problem: you dismiss the things of God as
> > "fairytales".<
> 
> If they are the things of God, show it from Scripture, and I will take that
> comment back.
> 

that's the problem. From what I can see of the way you interpret things,
you seem to come at them from whatever preconceived notions you have,
and from that point it's impossible to convince you otherwise. Let me
explain what I mean:

Your comment on the didache is unfathomable to me, because you ignore a
clear, natural reading of the text and insist a strict adherence to the
absolute letter of the word, rather than its colloquial meaning within
2000 years of Christianity, is the accurate understanding. This is the
same flawed logic the apostate Jehovah's Witnesses use to "prove" Jesus
wasn't crucified on a cross, but on a stake. It's the is the same flawed
logic the apostate Jehovah's Witnesses use to "prove" "Truly, I say to
you, today you will be with me in paradise" that Jesus wasn't saying the
thief's spirit would be in paradise that same day, but that Jesus was
stating "I am telling you on this particular day in April that in the
resurrection, thousands of years hence, after you awaken from your soul
sleep, you will be in paradise after the last Judgment". It doesn't
matter that no one ever interpreted the verse that way. It doesn't
matter that it is bad grammar, the JW has an agenda to affirm soul sleep
and he must thus interpret the verse that way or his theology is denied. 

So rather than repent from his false doctrine, he changes where the
punctuation marks go and insists his understanding of the word is the
correct one against all reasonable logic.

I see you doing the same thing with the Didache. Look at the words:

"But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist"

Obviously talking about physically eating or drinking something. And the
'something' is the elelments of communion. But that contradicts your
beliefs, so i assume you interpret the words "eat and drink" as
figurative, meaning to participate in some function. Never mind  no one
has ever interpeted the text that way--you're certain your revisionist
understanding of the words is the correct one.


"...unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for
concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to
the dogs."

Talks about physically giving something that's eaten and drinken, which
is "holy", to those who are unworthy. You don't want to believe that
it's literal, so I presume you again try to claim the "giving" is merely
allowing someone into a gathering of some sort.

I'm sorry, but you really have to torture the text to arrive at that
conclusion. It's like making a square peg fit into a round hole by using
a pile driver.

Now there's a guy here named Aaron whom I have been arguing with that
will tell you that Paul wanted all gentile believers to keep the whole
of the Law of Moses--including circumcision. He'll read the book of
Galatians and look you right in the face and tell you Paul wanted the
Galatians to undergo kosher circumcision to be obedient to God's
command. 

It don't matter what I say. It don't matter what Scripture I quote. He
is convinced God requires everyone to keep Mosaic Law, and thus Aaron
interprets every scripture as affirming that, and if the verse seems to
contradict that, we have misunderstood what the text means.

I see you doing precisely the same thing here. It's one thing to simply
disagree on the doctrine of Christ's presence in the eucharist, but to
use bad hermeneutics and just torture the didache wildly out of context
to force it to somehow agree with your view is completely disingenuous.

As I've told Aaron, if we can make the words of Paul affirm the
necessity of gentiles undergoing circumcision and keeping the Law of
Moses, we may as well throw the Bible away because we can then justify
ANY doctrine. In the same way, if you can deny the Didache's
acknowledgement that the eucharistic physical elelements are what's
"holy", you make any study of the Scripture or patristic writings
meaningless, because you can make them mean whatever you like simply by
ignoring their natural reading and applying an esoteric understanding to
them, or else applying an overly literal translation of the text which
gives you Christ dying in a pole, as examples