I didn't read it as was very long. Does it show any scientific studies on analyzing the wine to see if it actually turns to blood?

lespaul said:

---

I didn't read it as was very long. Does it show any scientific studies on analyzing the wine to see if it actually turns to blood?

---

Given that wine actually turning to blood is not what Christians who believe in the Real Presence believe, that is not relevant to the article.

XUSCR said:

---

lespaul said:

---

I didn't read it as was very long. Does it show any scientific studies on analyzing the wine to see if it actually turns to blood?

---

Given that wine actually turning to blood is not what Christians who believe in the Real Presence believe, that is not relevant to the article.

---

I'll take "What is a miracle without any evidence of that miracle" for $200!

Xuscr: Even catholics don't believe the wine does turn into blood? I've had many argue with me that it does. I've even had catholics tell me that science had proven this is true (yet they never seem to follow up with a technical report)

k2aggie07: Are you Catholic? I think this is where they differ from other flavors of Christianity in that they really believe a transition occurs (at least that is what many Catholics have claimed to me). Perhaps they are misunderstanding the church's stance on this.

No, but I am familiar with the doctrine.

Again. "Really believe a transition occurs" is true of both things I presented above. Transsubstantiation means a change of substance or essence - not necessarily a physical change, but a real change nonetheless.

This is a very difficult thing to have a rational conversation about. The Catholic position is not that the bread and wine physically transform into flesh and blood. And even the extreme Protestant position is not that it is a meaningless ritual done out of habit. Though you may hear uneducated lay people on either side make these arguments

There are certainly plenty of points of practice to discuss, such as leavened or unleavened, and who can prepare the elements, and how often should it be done. But when it comes to what Christians actually believe is happening spiritually and physically during the Eucharist/Communion, there is very little if any difference.

k2aggie07 said:

---

"turning into" is not precise enough to communicate the idea.

Does it physically turn into blood? As in, does it taste, smell like blood? Is the product of grape fermentation gone, and replaced with human blood cells? No, this is not what is held as the belief.

Does it metaphysically turn into blood? As in, has it become something altogether different while retaining its physical attributes? Yes.

The quandary is when people presume to suggest that a metaphysical change is not "real".

---

So where is the E V I D E N C E of this change? Again, you declare a miracle without any evidence of a miracle.

Man, I wish that were true but I don't think it is.

Many protestants believe that it is purely symbolic, with an implicit denial of the metaphysical. A symbol is not real, it only hearkens to or implies something else.

Other protestants believe in a kind of presence, but not necessarily a change. This, again, is not the same thing.

A metaphysical change would have metaphysical evidence, no?

k2aggie07 said:

---

A metaphysical change would have metaphysical evidence, no?

---

FIFY

Maybe not. I'm just going off my experience in SBC and non-denominational churches. I think the exact quote at my last non-denom church was "a physical representation of a spiritual reality", and it was about as Bible thumping as your going to find nowadays

Right - that formulation doesn't work. It is not a representation. That falls in the "purely symbolic" realm. The way this plays out is (for example) in the answer to - is taking communion sanctifying / efficacious for the forgiveness of sins?

Sigh. You really want to dive in whether the metaphysical is real or not?

I have plenty of metaphysical evidence by way of the experiential reality of those who commune, the grace received.

Are you saved? Does the Holy Spirit dwell in you? What evidence can you provide? Did you weigh more or less before/after? Different electrical field or potential on your body? Perhaps you looked or smelled different?

What evidence can you present for Christ's resurrection? If you bring forward the scriptures, surely I can offer them as evidence as well. Christ says "this is my Body". Are His words not enough for you?

Just sounds like semantics to me. In my experience, the Prostestant position is that God forgives the sins of those who confess and repent. Obedience to God's Will is part of repentence, and Communion would fall under obedience to God's Will. There's not a lot of talk about the exact mechanisms that God uses for forgiveness.

So if you asked if the Eucharist was useful for the forgiveness of sins, the answer would probably be a confused affirmative.

Right. But this is a discussion of mechanics, which ultimately becomes a discussion about grace. And the understanding there is very different. It even has some knock-on effects to how we view the interaction between the physical and the divine (leading to, for example, the common "physical is bad" inclination of some Protestants).

Baptism, communion, both for the remission and forgiveness of sins. Both real means of receipt of grace. Both viewed as merely symbolic by some Protestants. There is a difference of understanding, the words are not expressing the same underlying idea.

I think it becomes obedience for obedience's sake.

I see the point you're trying to make, but I think the point about "the body is bad" is a litte misaimed. After all, there is multiple milennia of Catholic/Orthodox extreme asceticism to counter the influence of the "bad body" and focus on the "good spiritual". You might be able to find such things in Prostestant churches, but it's not as much celebrated IMHO.

As far the mechanics, most Protestants just don't think about such things. It's a "we do what we do and God does what He does" sort of mindset. We get baptized, take communion, pray, show charity and compassion, turn away from sin. God forgives us and prepares a place for us in His kingdom. There's not really a flow chart that says what links to what. We do what we do to be obedient, He does what He does because He promised.

Again, just speaking on the typical thoughts from my upbringing and experience. I have rather different opinions regarding Protestantism recently

Right. I agree, but belief and praxis reveal and inform each other. So a variance in practice reveals a variance in belief, and a variance in one can cause a variance in the other.

I think this is obvious without providing examples, even if we only look at the Eucharist itself.

PS Asceticism is categorically not aimed at bad physical in Orthodoxy. It is therapeutic against the passions, not against the physical nature of the human.

I'm not trying to say otherwise. I just have a good understanding of the Protestant view and have tried to understand the Catholic position through study and discussion. And when it boils right down I have found very little difference in belief. One person can say "real Presence" and another person can say "symbol" but when both are talking about spiritual/metaphysical changes without physical changes it all just seems like bad semantics to me.

And I agree on the praxis comment. Like I said initially, to me all the interesting discussion on the topic is in the form of how it's carried out and what that reflects about beliefs more generally. For instance, the leavened/unleavened discussion is fascinating historically, theologically, and scripturally. The same is true for clergy/laiety administration

Again... not trying to be dense... but nothing changes when something is a symbol. And that is the issue.

Baptism, for example, is treated as an outward symbol of something that already happened by baptists. It's truly only a symbol as a sign of obedience. That's not anywhere close to what we believe about it.

Quote:

---

Baptism, for example, is treated as an outward symbol of something that already happened by baptists. It's truly only a symbol as a sign of obedience. That's not anywhere close to what we believe about it.

---

But conversion (or being born again if you will) and baptism are still inextricably linked. Every conversion necessitates a baptism, but conversion is not limited by the lack of immediate baptism. There both linked, important and necessary, they just aren't simultaneous. The analogy I've heard is similar to Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Even though it happened 2000 years ago, it's still act that saves me today.

Is the Catholic/Orthodox position that spiritual rebirth occurs only during baptism?

The Orthodox belief is that baptism is efficacious and salvific, for the forgiveness of sins. It is a real conveyance of grace, and the normative means of salvation and entry into the Church (not administrative, but real union with Christ). Spiritual rebirth can occur by God's sovereign economy in other ways, but this way is both prescribed and promised in the Scriptures, including Christ Himself. This is why in the service of baptism the priest says "Thou art justified. Thou art illumined. Thou art sanctified. Thou art washed: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." It is happening in that moment, in a holy mystery.

It is also a "seal" in that, in the scriptural formulation, the Holy Spirit arrives at the laying on of hands (which is not synonymous or simultaneous with baptism). Thus the mystery of baptism is immediately followed by the mystery of Chrismation, where the laying on of hands of the apostles (in this case, of their successors in the episcopate) through the anointing with oil. This is why when the oil is applied, the priest says "sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit".

Yeah, that sounds pretty different. One saying I've heard in church is that "you can be saved without being baptized but you can't be Christian without being baptized" Because being Christian means being a Christ-follower and He commanded baptism. So baptism is necessary to join the church but not for salvation. It sounds like baptism and salvation in Orthodox belief is much more tightly linked, with perhaps only exception in rare extenuating circumstances.

Driving a distinction between being saved and being a Christian seems odd to me.

So all non Christians go to hell. It seems christians overwhelmingly make this distinction

The idea is that salvation occurs when one "turns away from wickedness, recognizes God as Sovereign and let's Jesus into their heart". It is an entirely spiritual act. However, being Christian means following Christ by changing your life and follow Christ's commandments (including baptism, communion, prayer, church attendence, charity, preaching the Gospel) to the best of your ability.

Like I said, I'm probably the wrong person to give this side of the story, but I do have decades of experience with it at levels aside from ordination.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Sigh. You really want to dive in whether the metaphysical is real or not?

I have plenty of metaphysical no evidence by way of the experiential reality of those who commune, the grace received.

Are you saved? Does the Holy Spirit dwell in you? What evidence can you provide? Did you weigh more or less before/after? Different electrical field or potential on your body? Perhaps you looked or smelled different?

What evidence can you present for Christ's resurrection? If you bring forward the scriptures, surely I can offer them as evidence as well. Christ says "this is my Body". Are His words not enough for you?

---

Weaksauce.

I can also play this game, if you'd like.

Jesus also said this:

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

Do you take Christ at his word here? Are you casting out devils? Speaking with new tongues? Healing the sick by laying on your hands? You believe, right? Or are these actions those things that only applied to the apostles because he was speaking to them? If that is the case, why wouldn't the verse you referenced not be another case of recording what Jesus said to those with him at that moment.

Tell me, why is one a statement for all time, yet the other only a temporary powerup?

I would actually say that everyone who is saved is a Christian. But you do you.

I don't understand. I am not playing a game.

You didn't answer any of the questions I asked.

Do you have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? How do you know? What evidence is there of this?

And, was Christ resurrected? How do you know?

As for your new question, even if we ignore the fact that this portion of Mark is questionable, that is a terrible argument. He didn't say "continuously" or "a sign for all generations" etc. Just that they will. Have they? Sure, why not. We have plenty of scriptural promises about Holy Communion. It's not derived from a single verse. Can you stay focused or are we just quoting random scriptures now?

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

The idea is that salvation occurs when one "turns away from wickedness, recognizes God as Sovereign and let's Jesus into their heart". It is an entirely spiritual act. However, being Christian means following Christ by changing your life and follow Christ's commandments (including baptism, communion, prayer, church attendence, charity, preaching the Gospel) to the best of your ability.

Like I said, I'm probably the wrong person to give this side of the story, but I do have decades of experience with it at levels aside from ordination.

---

Yeah, I know. I was raised in that church. It's a nice program, but it's not scriptural or ancient in source. No need for you to defend it.

I wasn't trying to defend or attack. Just trying to accurate state the position for the sake of comparison. I just didn't want anyone to get upset at me for giving a sterile, emotionless acccount of the position instead of a vigorous and passionate defense.

k2aggie07 said:

---

I don't understand. I am not playing a game.

You didn't answer any of the questions I asked.

Do you have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? How do you know? What evidence is there of this?

And, was Christ resurrected? How do you know?

As for your new question, even if we ignore the fact that this portion of Mark is questionable, that is a terrible argument. He didn't say "continuously" or "a sign for all generations" etc. Just that they will. Have they? Sure, why not. We have plenty of scriptural promises about Holy Communion. It's not derived from a single verse. Can you stay focused or are we just quoting random scriptures now?

---

Please, you're smarter than this. A "game" is a figure of speech.

The answers to your questions are Faith, but Faith can be misplaced.

While I will concede that He never said "continuously for all generations" you must likewise concede that He never said those signs and wonders were for "this generation only". He simply said "those who believe". It's funny how you can look at a statement by Christ himself that would require evidence (such as healing solely through laying on of hands) and claim that it is a one-off thing for the first generation, but instead hone in like a homing missile towards something that requires no evidence of a miracle actually occurring. Way to go out on a limb there.