Doctor X

[Engage Khan Voice.--Ed.]

CapnKirk posts on transubstantiation just as I was about to . . . he tasks me . . . he tasks me, and I shall have him!

[Disengage Khan Voice.--Ed.]

Indeed, last I looked the Catholic church still holds to transubstantiation. It is a major "thing" it held against Protestants and other heretics so it is hard to drop--"You know . . . that dogma we had for the last 500+ years which led us to burn abunch of you? Sorry."

IAsimisI:

Jeremiah does not refer to the NT stories. I may have to double-check, but he is generally supporting Deuteronomy over other texts, particularly the P versions of the Pentateuch. The P version is the torah "he" generally attacks.

--J.D.

Toto

The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist gives no indication that Catholics have abandoned the doctrine, although they may fog it up with a lot of mystery talk.

I think this was the issue that split the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics in the 11th century.

Amos

Nothing has changed and no smoke has been added. If anything it has been deluded in the preamble wherein we express our unworthiness to receive the body and blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine. The "Lord I am not worthy to receive but only say the word and I shall be healed" used to be repeated three times to emphasize that the transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ (not Jesus) must take place in our mind, wherein only we can be worthy to receive.

To remove this state of un-worthiness Catholics receive a sanctifying grace as Catholics and these are the required sacraments along with some further conditions that make us worthy to receive. It is therefore also necessarily true that non-Catholics are not worthy and should not receive the bread and wine in the Catholic church, which itself will always be just bread and wine or the transformation could not take place in our mind (eg. it can't be an either/or thing and therefore is reserved for Catholics only).

Once we are worthy by nature to receive the body and blood of Christ everything that we eat will be equal to the body and blood of Christ = God among us is the end of Catholicsm wherein we must consume our equals to stay alive.

This is where Catholicism ends and "real food" and "real drink" (not "real meat" as in KJV) becomes equal to the "this is Buddha" phrase in Budhism wherein the material world is Buddha.

capnkirk

Amos is here . . . NOW there's smoke!!

Doctor X

Where there is some smoke . . . there is certainly ganga!

--J.D.

Evoken

A Messiah that fulfilled the prophecies written about him in the OT. The OT is where the events that occur in the NT come from, not from other pagan stories.

The OT also predates the supposed pagan influences of Christianity, so it is perhaps more fitting to say that given the rise of Christianity other pagan cults had no choice but to borrow some of its teachings in order to be able to gain more followers?

Also Christianity is strongly against the worship of idols and pagan deities, the same behavior is seen in the OT, how could it become what it opposed the most?. It was also not a lie fabricated overnight like you make it sound, many early Christians died, suffered and were persecuted for holding beliefs contrary to the pagans would this have been so if it was all a lie? I doubt it.

The writings that now form The Bible were collected slowly and selected based upon careful study, relevance and usefulness of the texts over a long period of time. The large amount of manuscript evidence for the NT writing is further proof of the validity of the Christian doctrine and it also provides more evidence for its accuracy.

There are also the Nag Hammadi manuscripts and the Dead Sea scrolls which are further proof of Jesus and his disciples. They are different in what they teach but are based on the same events and person they also share many more similarities with The Bible.

Saying that Christianity is a myth or a rip off of paganism is to ignore its history and development.

Paul quotes that chapter of Jeremiah in chapter 8 of Hebrews refering to the flaws that the first covenant had and why a new one was needed. If there is any information outside of this that I am missing I'd be glad to know it.

Mageth

Originally posted by IAsimisI
A Messiah that fulfilled the prophecies written about him in the OT. The OT is where the events that occur in the NT come from, not from other pagan stories.

You are assuming a lot. It's more believable (to me, anyway) that the "prophetic fulfillments" of Jesus' life were additions to the accounts of Jesus's life found in the Gospels (written decades after the events portrayed) which were added to make Jesus more acceptable as a messiah. IOW, it's not hard to provide a rational explanation for those amazing fulfilled prophecies in Jesus' life. Such embellishments were not uncommon in Jewish religious texts, even in the OT (study up on midrash).

The OT also predates the supposed pagan influences of Christianity,

True, but Christianity is not found in the OT, unless one accepts some questionable interpretations.

so it is perhaps more fitting to say that given the rise of Christianity other pagan cults had no choice but to borrow some of its teachings in order to be able to gain more followers?

Many of the pagan influences evident in Christianity are not found in the OT, but are found in pagan mythologies predating Christianity. You do the math.

Also Christianity is strongly against the worship of idols and pagan deities, the same behavior is seen in the OT, how could it become what it opposed the most?

Well, you're missing something quite obvious. The OT is very specific that there is One God, and only One God, and that no other Gods should be worshipped before him. Jesus, claiming to be God, and to whom, supposedly, "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess", directly contradicts this central tenet of the OT. Hence, the Jews weren't too happy with Jesus or claims by the Christians that he was God and should be worshipped, and so most Jews didn't accept Christianity or messianic/divine claims for Jesus.

It was also not a lie fabricated overnight like you make it sound, many early Christians died, suffered and were persecuted for holding beliefs contrary to the pagans would this have been so if it was all a lie? I doubt it.

Not this tired old claim again. People go to their death all the time for all sorts of reasons, including lies. In addition, no one is saying that those who were martyred didn't really believe the stories - undoubtedly, most of them did. However, this does not indicate that what they believed was true - merely that they believed it was true.

Further, many early christians considered martyrdom to be "emulating Christ" and the one sure way to salvation, so happily went to their deaths. However, there were those (namely some of the Gnostics) that thought the whole idea of martyrdom was silly and pointless.

The writings that now form The Bible were collected slowly and selected based upon careful study, relevance and usefulness of the texts over a long period of time.

And four Gospels were recommended by Irenaeus because there are four corners to the earth, four winds, and four beasts of the apocalypse. Makes perfect logical sense to me.

BTW, the primary reason for selecting what went in and what became "heresy" was how orthodox the texts were to the beliefs of those deciding on the Canon. What we now perceive as "Christianity" is really the "orthodox" views of many in the churches of the day that won out over several opposing views of what Jesus' true message and nature were. That's why the Nag Hammadi texts you mentioned ended up buried in a jar - they were considered heretical.

The large amount of manuscript evidence for the NT writing is further proof of the validity of the Christian doctrine

Umm, no, any manuscripts there are (and there are very very few early manuscripts) are evidence of manuscripts that somehow survived, not evidence of the "validity of the Christian doctrine".

and it also provides more evidence for its accuracy.

Umm, no. Perhaps evidence for the correctness of current Biblical texts, but not evidence for the accuracy of the accounts in the Bible.

There are also the Nag Hammadi manuscripts and the Dead Sea scrolls which are further proof of Jesus and his disciples. They are different in what they teach but are based on the same events and person they also share many more similarities with The Bible.

Have you read them? Many are radically different than the canonical Gospels, both in the messages they teach and in the events they portray - that's how they ended up buried, as they were considered heretical. Further, many if not most were written very late, at least in the second century), as far as we can tell, and therefore are not "further proof" of Jesus and his disciples. (I'm speaking more to the Nag Hammadi texts here, as I'm not as familiar with the Dead Sea scrolls - weren't they mostly OT documents?)

Saying that Christianity is a myth or a rip off of paganism is to ignore its history and development.

I think you need to do more research. The more I learn of Christianity's history and development, the more I understand how the myth grew, and how elements of paganism (largely, Hellenism) seeped in.

rlogan

Hi JTurtle.

Weltall gave some additional examples. At the moment the eucharist is the example. It is not clear what the point is, or we wouldn't have major differences of church doctrine over the Eucharist.

We would not have posters saying how clear it is that it is speaking to the word of God, and how simple that is to understand - while at the same time the Catholic church is insisting for centuries on transubstantiation.

So forgve me, but it isn't clear at all. Gosh, just a sentence or two more would clarify something like this. Here's just a really simple example: Boil water while backpacking. It kills the stuff that will make you sick.

I think one of the most ridiculous convolutions is the three-for-one trinity special. Now if this were something important you would think Jesus would just sit people down and explain carefully and completely this principle. Instead, it's a cobbled-together inference that caused division in the church. Of course, once it was official policy then it was important to kill people who didn't quite see it that way.

Yea - Amaleq13 I guess this omnibenevolent God confuses us as a means of limiting entry...

Amos

But did you see the smoke clear in the message?

NOGO

This event, however, did not take place in the first century.

We need an event ini the first century.