Informative

[guno]

So manufacturing crackers then swinging incense around it and a priest saying Abra Kadabra make it into jesus?

No.

Do you think the cracker turns into jesus?

 

[Meriweather]

Do you think the cracker turns into jesus?

Since "crackers" are not used, that should answer your question.

 

[guno]

Do you think the cracker turns into jesus?

Since "crackers" are not used, that should answer your question.

OK "Host" then


Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the change by which the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist become, not merely as a sign or a figure, but also in actual reality the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church teaches that the substance, or reality, of the bread is changed into that of the body of Christ and the substance of the wine into that of his blood,

 

[Meriweather]

Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the change by which the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist become, not merely as a sign or a figure, but also in actual reality the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church teaches that the substance, or reality, of the bread is changed into that of the body of Christ and the substance of the wine into that of his blood,

Catholics trust in the promises Christ made, but yours and my disconnect here occurs much further back. Catholics believe Christ is One with the Father and speaks for/with/as God, we have faith that what he says is truth. To compare: Jews do not believe what a burning bush says, Jews believe what God said through the auspices of a burning bush. Jews have no belief in Christ as God; Catholics do.

Without the belief that Christ is God, and with no understanding of how anyone could even possibly believe God became man, Transubstantiation isn't the conversation with which we should begin, but with our first disconnect about what God has (or has not) done.

Jesus held out a loaf of bread and said, "Take and eat, this is my body..." Similarly he held out a chalice of wine and said, "Take and drink, this is my blood..." Earlier, when Christ tried to explain he would be giving us his flesh (true food) and blood (true drink) many people of the time said, Yeah, that teaching is beyond us (too difficult to believe), and they left. The Apostles (and now others) accept it on faith because we trust and believe Jesus is who he said he was and can do what he tells us he can do.

So yes, I believe that Christ/God can nourish us with his body and blood through the bread and wine that is consecrated in his name. I believe this because I believe in God and I believe God always has--and will continue to--reach out to His people.

 

[guno]

Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the change by which the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist become, not merely as a sign or a figure, but also in actual reality the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church teaches that the substance, or reality, of the bread is changed into that of the body of Christ and the substance of the wine into that of his blood,

Catholics trust in the promises Christ made, but yours and my disconnect here occurs much further back. Catholics believe Christ is One with the Father and speaks for/with/as God, we have faith that what he says is truth. To compare: Jews do not believe what a burning bush says, Jews believe what God said through the auspices of a burning bush. Jews have no belief in Christ as God; Catholics do.

Without the belief that Christ is God, and with no understanding of how anyone could even possibly believe God became man, Transubstantiation isn't the conversation with which we should begin, but with our first disconnect about what God has (or has not) done.

Jesus held out a loaf of bread and said, "Take and eat, this is my body..." Similarly he held out a chalice of wine and said, "Take and drink, this is my blood..." Earlier, when Christ tried to explain he would be giving us his flesh (true food) and blood (true drink) many people of the time said, Yeah, that teaching is beyond us (too difficult to believe), and they left. The Apostles (and now others) accept it on faith because we trust and believe Jesus is who he said he was and can do what he tells us he can do.

So yes, I believe that Christ/God can nourish us with his body and blood through the bread and wine that is consecrated in his name. I believe this because I believe in God and I believe God always has--and will continue to--reach out to His people.

So you are actually eating jesus? Yes?

 

[Meriweather]

So you are actually eating jesus?

Yes, we are being nourished by the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus in the same way an infant is nourished by its mother's milk.

 

[irosie91]

History of Christians putting Jews in ovens is frightening indeed.

Actually Christians saved Jews

Rabbi Says Pope Saved More Jews From Holocaust than Schindler

860,000 Lives Saved - The Truth About Pius XII & the Jews | Jewish Virtual Library

despite the fact Jews killed millions of Christians.

Stalin's Jews

Delta4Embassy, why do you lie all the time?

your citation written by one "ari alexander" is chock full of errors. The idiot even
places Maimonides in TURKEY!!!! and claims that the turks were---at that time
"pagans" wrong!!! the turks at that time were muslims Christians and jews. He
claims that Jesus is in hell boiling in semen according to the Talmud. wrong-----there is no such line in the Talmud He seems to HOPE that no one has read
the pertinent books------I have----including Maimondes' Guide for the Perplexed----
Maimonides was born in Cordoba spain----and lived during the time of the crusades.
He fled Cordoba spain because of Islamic pogroms-- to FEZ morocco. There he
"converted to lslam" with a knife at his throat and fled to Egypt where SALAADIN
liked him so much that he became the physician of the palace. For Maimonides
the word "GOY" meant either Christian-----murdering jews thuout any land they
touched during the crusades or muslims -----similarly engaged. Sala'adin was
a rare exception. Richard the Lion Hearted was not. There is one paragraph
in the "GUIDE" which implies-----that one is not obligated to save the life of a
drowning "goy" The convention of referring to enemies as "goy" also exists
in the Talmud. It confuses the simple minded.

 

[irosie91]

They need to quit that old age teaching, and make it more symbolic. Instead of a gross thought , it can be made into a beautiful thing of sharing of the bread of life with all. I have had Priests tell me its a spiritual thing and frankly most of us in US were not taught transubstantiation in my generation. Even my altar boy nephews were not taught that.

during the inquisition------catholics who explained the transubstantiation
cookie thing as "SYMBOLIC" and not REAL were executed. I am actually
surprised that it is NOW being taught as merely symbolic ------when did that
happen? Growing up I had lots of catholic friends-----in the 70s one priest
student liked to talk to me about his impression of Judaism --very amusing.
Another was an ex-priest at that time recently graduated from medical school.
So the change must be MORE RECENT. NOT TAUGHT? gee---it's in the
books-------I read a cute little book put out by the catholic church for nurses. For
your interest------if a person DIES before he swallows the Eucharist-----the book
provides detailed instructions on how to salvage it from the dead person's mouth.

I have nothing against the wafer/wine thing-----Martin Luther did not like
it because he considered it TOO JEWISH----but Lutherans----I have heard---
do some kind of similar thing. Silly to mock a little ceremony

Panelope----you should consider correcting WIKI. Wiki is not up to snuff on
the SYMBOLIC thing

 

[Thunderbird]

your citation written by one "ari alexander" is chock full of errors. The idiot even
places Maimonides in TURKEY!!!! and claims that the turks were---at that time
"pagans" wrong!!! the turks at that time were muslims Christians and jews.

Where does he say that?

 

[irosie91]

your citation written by one "ari alexander" is chock full of errors. The idiot even
places Maimonides in TURKEY!!!! and claims that the turks were---at that time
"pagans" wrong!!! the turks at that time were muslims Christians and jews.

Where does he say that?

you would have to actually read the citation

 

[Thunderbird]

your citation written by one "ari alexander" is chock full of errors. The idiot even
places Maimonides in TURKEY!!!! and claims that the turks were---at that time
"pagans" wrong!!! the turks at that time were muslims Christians and jews.

Where does he say that?

you would have to actually read the citation

Quote him then.

 

[irosie91]

your citation written by one "ari alexander" is chock full of errors. The idiot even
places Maimonides in TURKEY!!!! and claims that the turks were---at that time
"pagans" wrong!!! the turks at that time were muslims Christians and jews.

Where does he say that?

you would have to actually read the citation

Quote him then.

sure -----He quotes Maimonides’ statement that, "their [the Turks and the blacks] nature is like the nature of mute animals" The translation of their as "the turks
and the blacks" -----no doubt Maimonides encountered blacks in Egypt since
arabs at that time ran their slave commodities thru Egypt------but TURKS? no
history at all of Maimonides being in Turkey. Just spain and Egypt and Buried in
Tiberias. I read the book and have no recollection of any comment on either turks or blacks. (I do remember details) It is one of many mustakes
that ari makes He may have read Shahak without checking his citations.
Jews are "taught to burn copies of the New Testament"? like raid churches for them? "curse the mothers of buried gentiles"??? I missed that lesson. Mayb
Shahak's mother did that ??? I never heard any jew do it. Gentiles cannot live
in 92% of Israel ?? nope---another lie. Some of the land purchased by jews
before 1948 was placed in a LAND TRUST ------just like the land owned by the
Armenian church -------the land trust has strings and it is not 92% of the country----
it might be 92% of the land owned by the state----which is marketable.

 

[Thunderbird]

your citation written by one "ari alexander" is chock full of errors. The idiot even
places Maimonides in TURKEY!!!! and claims that the turks were---at that time
"pagans" wrong!!! the turks at that time were muslims Christians and jews.

Where does he say that?

you would have to actually read the citation

Quote him then.

sure -----He quotes Maimonides’ statement that, "their [the Turks and the blacks] nature is like the nature of mute animals" The translation of their as "the turks
and the blacks" -----no doubt Maimonides encountered blacks in Egypt since
arabs at that time ran their slave commodities thru Egypt------but TURKS? no
history at all of Maimonides being in Turkey. Just spain and Egypt and Buried in
Tiberias.

He could have met Turks or at least heard of them.

He lived in Egypt which is near the Seljuk Empire.

Seljuk Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[irosie91]

your citation written by one "ari alexander" is chock full of errors. The idiot even
places Maimonides in TURKEY!!!! and claims that the turks were---at that time
"pagans" wrong!!! the turks at that time were muslims Christians and jews.

Where does he say that?

you would have to actually read the citation

Quote him then.

sure -----He quotes Maimonides’ statement that, "their [the Turks and the blacks] nature is like the nature of mute animals" The translation of their as "the turks
and the blacks" -----no doubt Maimonides encountered blacks in Egypt since
arabs at that time ran their slave commodities thru Egypt------but TURKS? no
history at all of Maimonides being in Turkey. Just spain and Egypt and Buried in
Tiberias.

He could have met Turks or at least heard of them.

He lived in Egypt which is near the Seljuk Empire.

Seljuk Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

he could have but probably did not. I cited only one of Ari Alexander's errors
regarding the book GUIDE TO THE PERPLEXED and----also Shahak's nonsense on the Talmud. Shahak was ANTI-RELIGION----being a firm communist. His "humanism" was BS