Thread 18136463

It is the nature of a man not to exist in many places at once, so if Christ is physically present on every altar on earth every Lord's Day then He cannot be true man. It may be that God could cause an object to be in many places at once, but He could not cause it to be both in many places at once and human, by virtue of His logical laws which He imposes on creation and it seems a very weak and impotent god who is unable to impose his will on creation by making it logically consistent. It also contradicts those lines of the Creed, "He ascended into heaven", "from there He shall come to judge the living and the dead"; since if He is physically present today then He could not be said to have left, and if He never left then He cannot return. And they violate the Lord's warning that we should not believe those who say "Look, here is the Christ".
To believe in transubstantiation is basically to deny the incarnation, ascension and second coming of Jesus Christ.

>>18136463 (OP)
I think this guy said something along the lines of Perseus (or another Pagan person) was in heaven which made some people seethe.

>>18136463 (OP)
recognizing that bread is a manifestation of the Spirit made possible by the fall isn't incorrect, but thinking juice and crackers is the flesh and blood of God is incorrect. especially true because the body of Christ is composed of each one of its members

bump

>For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

160 A.D. by Saint Justin Martyr

Modern Evangelicals don't realize how much they owe to Zwingli.

>>18137395
>Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory forever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory forever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who 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. Matthew 7:6

There is no mention of real presence or transubstantiation in the Didache, which is far older than Justin Martyr.

>>18137404
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>>18137427
C'mon now it's the earliest Eucharistic prayer we have outside of the Bible and it doesn't include anything about real body or real blood?

>>18137438
The earliest prayer is in the Gospels and Christ literally says this is my body and blood in them.

>>18137460
notice I said outside the bible.

>>18136463 (OP)
>God can't

>>18136463 (OP)
Persecuting Anabaptists was based.

>>18137466
My mistake, still I think the mystery of real presence was there from the get-go.

As was Saint and icon veneration, while we are at it.

>>18137477
>As was Saint and icon veneration, while we are at it.

Source?

>>18136463 (OP)
>but He could not cause it to be both in many places at once and human, by virtue of His logical laws which He imposes on creation
Why not? In the bible God breaks his "logical laws" all the time. What makes it so certain God would be opposed to breaking his laws for the eucharist when he was completely fine to break his laws back then?
Seems like a poor argument

>>18137483
Nicaea II, it was presided over by the holy spirit, which means it can not err.

>>18137515
>Nicaea II
hm i don't remember that part of the Bible.

>>18136463 (OP)
>It is the nature of a man
Empty words.
Is it in the nature of man to fly? Do we stop being men when the plane we're on takes off?

What.

Jesus is God.

>>18137538
Neither can most people before it was translated into their native languages, were their ancestors all damned for following traditions of men?

>>18137570
*could

>>18137570
They had no clue. They were at the behest of a corrupt clergy.

>>18136463 (OP)
>not to exist in many places at once,
Something something quantum mechanics.

>>18136463 (OP)
>by virtue of His logical laws which He imposes on creation and it seems

The resurrected Body of Christ could do weird stuff like walk through walls. I'm sure we can astroproject into some bread.

>>18137715
he can*

Christ can absolutely conjure or clone his flesh and blood into the Eucharist. It's his blood and flesh, not his《 divine ¤ human 》presence.

>>18137399
His position is better than Luther's but worse than Calvin's and the later Reformed.

>>18137821
Luther's doesn't sound that much different than Calvin's; bread and wine stay the same, but Christ is still present in it.

>>18137404
Note there is also no mention of it in Justin Martyr. Justin could not have meant transubstantiation by those words, but his meaning is "we receive the bread and wine as though it were the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ", since 1. he makes no mention of any change occurring in the bread, but only of how it is regarded by the Christian receiver. Now recall that the audience is the pagan emperor, who knew nothing of Christianity, and it is unthinkable that Justin would so casually pass by transubstantiation, which the emperor would have found very strange, 2. he compares it directly to the incarnation, which is deadly to transubstantiation because to suppose the substance of God the Son was changed into the substance of a man is the heresy of Eutyches the Monophysite, 3. he says it is received "not as common bread", which is a direct refutation, for if he believed transubstantiation he should have said they did not receive bread.

And notice what is also missing from the quote as Justin makes no mention of a priest, without whom transubstantiation cannot be performed in Romanism. The papist argument is essentially "this father said the bread is Christ's body, therefore he was teaching transubstantiation" but this anachronism assumes what it pretends to prove, since "the bread is Christ's body" is essentially identical to the words of institution, which are not literal, so there is no reason to believe the fathers meant this literally either.

>>18137821
I don't believe Zwingli had a different view from the later reformers. Zwingli's exact view of the sacraments has been debated since the Reformation itself, and I take the view that he had essentially the same view as more fully developed Reformed theology (the interpretation of Zwingli as a memorialist usually relies on reading him in light of memorialism, however I find this anachronistic because when Zwingli was writing there were no memorialists running around).
>I believe that in the sacred Eucharist the true body of Christ is present through the contemplation of faith.
-Huldrych Zwingli, Fidei Ratio.

Also the Reformed view is the best one because it is biblically correct. It is an impious and perverse superstition to suppose Christ's flesh is chewed with the teeth.

Communion is so fascinating, bros. My favorite part of Christian theology.

>thread about communion
>no words of the institution

23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

>>18137502
God breaks His natural laws but not logical ones. It is a law of nature and not logic for a man not to rise from the dead, because it is natural law for the dead to remain dead but it does not belong to the definition of man to be dead, however it belongs to the definition of man (indeed, all material things) to be isolated to a particular location. Therefore, "a man is spatially limited" is true by virtue of the law of identity, and not laws of nature.
>>18137563
The humanity of Jesus is not God.
>>18137570
1. Biblical authority and non-biblical authority are not derived from the accessibility of the bible. "So and so cannot read, therefore I am infallible" is a very strange argument 2. Traditions of men are to be rejected not because they are traditions but because they are contrary to scripture, being a tradition merely subjects them to scripture's tribunal. Thus we embrace the Creed as the summary of the Christian faith even though it is not itself scripture.
>>18137715
Walking through walls is more like walking on water than obliterating space and time.

>>18138015
Logic is the science of thought. Claiming that God is subject to the science of thought, means he is subject to human's atempts to understand their own thinking. Since God had created man, he has created both thought and science.

>>18138028
Not at all. God made man in His image, man's soul is a copy of God's being, the reason man thinks logically is the same as the reason the universe is ordered logically: God thinks logically. Logic arises from God's being and not His will, laws of logic proceed from the mind of God and are virtually distinct from His essence. For God to violate logical laws would be like God being evil. And if you think laws of logic are not universal and intrinsic properties of creation, then you think they actually are, since there is no more law of non-contradiction and you have no ground to contest the assertion.

>>18138044
Show me scriptural evidence and I'll consider whether your claims are substantial.

>>18138051
1 Corinthians 14:33
Exodus 20:16

>>18138015
>God breaks
Nothing is impossible for God
>>18138044
Ok Spinoza
>>18138070
>1 Corinthians 14:33
It is hardly disorder, if transubstantiation is to be believed then it is done regularly and consistantly, always in the same way
>Exodus 20:16
explain

>>18138083
>Spinoza
You think that's Spinozism?
>transubstantiation
The text is proving laws of logically reflect the thinking of God, sir.
>explain
If there are no laws of logic then there is no difference between true and false, and if there is no difference between true and false then there is no difference between true and false witness and the 9th commandment is meaningless.

>>18138015
Walking through walls and walking on water are just as logic-breaking as they are unnatural. So is rising from the dead.

>>18138103
Which law of logic do they contradict?

>>18138105
The laws of physics, which derive from God's logically ordered universe.

>>18138070
>29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.
Relevations are not products of the science of thought.

>You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
How does this show God to be subject to logic? Generally the idea of God being subject to logic is so preposterous and completely against the first commandment.

Psalm 115:
1Not to us, Lord, not to us
but to your name be the glory,
because of your love and faithfulness.
2Why do the nations say,
“Where is their God?”
3Our God is in heaven;
he does whatever pleases him.
4But their idols are silver and gold,
made by human hands.

Isiah 46:
8“Remember this, keep it in mind,
take it to heart, you rebels.
9Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.
10I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say, ‘My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.’

I ask you poster: are your idols silver and gold? Does He call you a rebel?

>>18138117
>The laws of physics
Those are laws of nature and not logic.
>>18138122
>Relevations are not products of the science of thought.
Irrelevant
>How does this show God to be subject to logic?
God is subject to nothing, everything is subject to God. And it is because all things are subject to God they are perfectly logical, because God is mighty enough to impose His thinking on creation. And therefore it is impossible for a man to be in many places at once, because of the might of God.

>>18138135
How is it logical to have a camel go through the eye of a needle?

>>18138135
Don't the laws of physics come from God's logically structured universe?

>>18138145
You do realize that was an analogy for impossibility?
>>18138148
They arise from God's will rather than His being.

>>18138015
Well, I do believe the trinitarian proposition of
>A=Z
>B=Z
>C=Z
>A=!B
>B=!C
>C=!A
breaks several laws of logic. So clearly this god isn't as bounded by them as you say he is.

>>18138211
>a
Arguably you could do something with sets to resolve this but I'm pretty sure the implication of that would be some sort of Heresy

>>18138211
>the trinity is this illogical strawman I made up and that makes no sense
obviously your incorrect understanding contains no truth

>>18138195
>22When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
>23When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. >24Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
>26Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?”
>27Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.”

Yes, things which we consider "logically impossible" are possible to God.

>>18138211
I'm an atheist and I've never gotten someone so worked up on this site when I was defending the notion of the trinity in my Catholic LARP. This adversary was an apex midwit operating on p a=a, b=b, c=c. The limitation of his logical parameters. So riled up was he that he frenzied and I decimated him with post after post and he kept coming back like a glutton for punishment. If his brain was a CPU it would have been overheating from the process load. It didn't even feel fair yet the amusement I derived was so great especially at not even being a believer in God. It was like arguing with a child about chirality. No matter what, he just didn't get it. I'm convinced the big brains used it as a filter for back in the Arian heresy days to keep out the midwits. The sub 90 IQ masses would listen to them because they don't question and know "dayum, dis nigga smart". Meanwhile other 145 IQ geniuses capable of abstract thinking and understanding consubstansiality understood it indeed is possible for three distinct entities to be one yet separate. Bravo big brains, bravo, I deem the trinity as the most successful midwit filter of all time. What a marvel of intellectual engineering! We see pleb filters all the time but those are easy to craft, childsplay. But the midwit filter? Rare. Rare indeed. Hats off to my fellow big brains of the past. I know if they were alive today they would be right here on this site doing exactly what I do.

>>18138238
Buddy that's not the trinity. That diagram was made by a Jehovah's Witness. They don't believe in the trinity.

>>18138253
peak bait!

>>18138253
Well, copypasta man. I did say you could make it work. Just that it would also probably be a 3rd century heresy.
Priests and scholars tend to just say the exact working of the trinity is a mystery and leave it at that. Which is a tacit admission we do not comprehend it. That is it makes no sense to us.

>>18138211
>I do believe
Sounds like a you problem.

>>18138272
There is a difference between something being beyond our comprehension and something directly violating logical law.

>>18138282
First I'd recommend you taking a look at set theory. They way that you are throwing around "=" signs is honestly embarassing and shows: the midwit, it was you.

>>18138240
Christ's point is not about a camel entering the eye of a needle but of a rich man being saved. He speaks not of what is logically impossible but what is naturally impossible, which is very possible with God. Again, God is called omnipotent because He is always able to accomplish what He wills, so for what He does not will to occur, such as for both parts of a contradiction to be true, argues not omnipotence but impotence.

>>18136463 (OP)
Matthew 28:18
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Make sure you temper your thinking with study of the scripture.