I will never leave the Catholic Church. I have been weak at times and have entertained other ideas but in the end the Catholic Church is the true Church which is the only Church that can trace itself to Christ and the Apostles.
Both gentlemen were charitable and brotherly towards one another. Bravo for that above all! I used to be in Dale's camp, believing that The Lord's Supper is only a symbol. I had my theology all lined up, just like Dale. I even thought the Catholic view of Eucharist to be idolatrous. I don't think anyone can be convinced through intellectual or theological argument. I can tell you that only the Holy Spirit could change my mind, and that is what He did. I first consumed the Body and Blood of Jesus during an Episcopalian Eucharist service along about 1982. I decided to participate in unity with the Christians there, and told myself that it was only a symbol and remembrance of Jesus. (I can only tell you that I am glad that Communion is open to all baptized Christians in the Episcopal Church, or I wouldn't be a Catholic today.) When I knelt down at the rail, I believed Eucharist to be only a symbol. By the time I stood up, I knew otherwise. I actually tasted salty, metallic blood as I ate and drank. I didn't even know what a Eucharistic miracle was at the time. It literally changed my life! You know why I know it was Him? Because I stopped believing that Catholics weren't real Christians in that moment, and truly began to see them as brothers and sisters for the first time. It tore down that wall I had built in my heart against them. Also, I now know that Holy Eucharist is where heaven and earth meet. It is an intimacy with the Lord Jesus that you really have to experience to know it's true. I pray my brother Dale will open his heart to Christ in the Eucharist.
Interesting. On my end I will always be a Real Seeker and thus open to changing my mind if I'm proven wrong on something. For me, I never had the issue of assuming all Catholics are damned. I suppose with the Eucharistic miracles, my only issue is why given transubstantiation your experience isn't the experience of everyone at all times if the substance really changes. So when you or Luis appealed to Eucharistic miracles in the show, my only issue is that even if these miracles are true, it actually disproves the Catholic doctrine since such should always be the case in terms of literal transformation. But I do appreciate your sentiments and kind words here, I promise to keep an open mind to truth and I just ask that you do the same with respect to Protestantism as well unless you have 100% knowledge as I think that is the only time I would close my mind completely such as 1+1=2, I know that absolutely to be true, so I'm not open to 1+1=8 there.
@@RealSeekers a blessed Eucharist goes through a spiritual change, not a material one (usually). There have been countless Eucharistic miracles. But probably only 1% get reported to the public, since only the Vatican can investigate and declare these events. And not all Eucharistic miracles manifest in the same way….there have been reports of appearing/disappearing, multiplication, images, blood, etc. Why aren’t all Eucharist miracles the same? That’s up to God. He works in His own ways. To expect and demand that all miracles should work entirely the same way to prove anything (let alone the Truth of Catholicism) is a limited, human thought. We can not depend entirely on our minds to understand the vastness of God’s kingdom. But thankfully, God gave us enough intelligence and will to seek Him. - Peace
@@lilyd5596 Hi Lily, just to clarify, I fully agree with your point that we ought not to make demands for miracles of God, so I do renounce that kind of arrogance on our part towards God, God is not a genie after all. That said, I think my argument in the show is a little more nuanced, it recognizes the difference between essential and accidental properties for example, but I argued that the DNA is one of the essential properties of bread/wine and humanity and thus if there is a substantive change taking place as transubstantiation entails then there needs to be a DNA switch since that is part of the substance/essence of what bread/wine vs. human being are by nature- DNA can't be regarded as being irrelevant or merely accidental to the kind of substance that humans are or in the case of bread/wine, the kind of "property-thing" they are (bread and wine are purely physical entities and thus in mereology they are not substances in themselves but instead they are "property-things" whereby their unity is much looser).
Hi Dale and Luis, I just finished listening to your debate on Transubstantiation. Excellent job! Congratulations to both of you! At one point the two of you were talking about discerning the Body and Blood of Jesus in the Eucharist and whether a person would be damned to Hell if they didn’t. Luis, at about 2:01:50, said: “In Catholicism we would say that if anyone consciously rejects these things after it has been explained to them, they are anathema. Now, that's not the same as simply failing to understand. It's like an actual conscious rejection of these things after they've been explained to them. So ignorance is one of the things that has to be taken into consideration.” You then asked: “Just out of curiosity with that, would I be included there? Because I understand, I think I understand, the doctrine but I am saying I have reasons to reject it on a balance of probability.” I’m no expert, but I think Luis may have overstated things a bit. Anathemas have sometimes been issued by the Catholic Church, but were pretty rare. The most recent “Code of Canon Law” from 1983 doesn’t even use the word and so, from what I can tell, there is no procedure in the Catholic Church today for an anathema to be issued. Also, looking at past canons, from different Church Councils, often they wouldn’t say the person was anathema but, rather, “let him be anathema”. For example, in the Council of Trent the first canon reads: “Canon 1. If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.” The actual anathemas were a procedure that involved the pope and were rarely done. Also, as I understand it, anathema were/are only given by the Catholic Church to baptized Catholics. Non-Catholics cannot be anathemized as they are not part of the Catholic Church. So, even if the Catholic Church still issued anathemas, you wouldn’t get one. Also, the Catholic Church sees a huge difference between the Eucharist that has been consecrated by a priest and the bread and wine prayed over by someone who has not received the sacrament of Holy Orders. So, the Catholic Church would say that if you received the Eucharist in a Catholic or Orthodox Church then you would be receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. But, if you were to receive it in a Protestant Church, where it wasn’t consecrated by a priest, then you would only be receiving bread and wine and NOT the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. So, if you have only received it in a non-Catholic or non-Orthodox Church then you have nothing to worry about. Just some thoughts on one section where Luis might have overstated a few things. Again, excellent show! Keep them coming! Brian
I hear that a lot, but to be honest I think that is a fallacy since just because someone lived earlier than another person doesn't mean that their information is more likely to be reliable or true (John Lennox calls this chronological snobbery). Think about it, none of the Early Fathers before 200 A.D. had ready access to the entire Bible or the knowledge of Hebrew that modern scholars have access to- modern scholars are in a much better position to know the truth in some cases. So just wanted to counter that it's not as simplistic as well Ignatius lived 70-80 years after Jesus' Rez and we live 2000 years after therefore whatever Ignatius says is true. That said, yes it is also true that Ignatius likely had access to information that has long since been lost to history as well and so it should be both/and when considering what the true doctrines are.
Wow!! This debate just proved the need for a magisterial interpreter all the more imo!! I don't know what dale was talking about with his metaphysics, but I find it very interesting that he relies on his metaphysics to interpret the Bible, rather than the Bible to interpret his metaphysics... I think this is the thing I've found with Protestantism: just because you don't THINK you need/have a Pope/Magisterium to guide your interpretations of scripture, doesn't mean you haven't made a Pope/Magisterium OUT OF something else unfitting. It's ok to admit the Bible is confusing, and that there are a great many mysteries about it, as well as some very confusing things... It's ok to admit that the Bible doesn't speak for itself to address all of those tough topics sufficiently enough to speak comprehensively on all possible interpretations of the text... In short, it's ok to admit the need for an infallible interpreter of Scripture. (i.e. the Pope's ex cathedra statements and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church) Moreover, just because the Holy Spirit can inspire all people to perfectly understand the full, comprehensive meanings of Scripture passages doesn't mean he will always do so. God throughout the history of his love for mankind has always employed fallible human servants to do his work for him. Due to this, it is not crazy to suggest that the Holy Spirit could choose certain fallible human beings and empower them to speak infallibly on matters of serious importance of his church. The Catholic doctrines surrounding Papal infallibility doesn't hold the Pope to be perfect in all things, (afterall the first Pope, Peter, surely wasn't and we have biblical evidence to prove it) instead it holds that, concerning ex cathedra statements, the Holy Spirit will guide fhe Pope into all truth and communion with those authorities wgove gone befire him
Trogo is only otherwised used in John 13:18, and matthew 24:38, Strongs ,5176 trogo, gnaw, chew, eat. It still supports literal eating but the other passages 1 Cor. 8:4 term is Strongs 1085 genos. Acts 10:10, Strongs 1089 genomai. John 6:13, Strongs 977, bibrosko. May want to update the argument. Yea, it is literal, but the only two non John 6 passages for trogo are only John 13:18 and Matthew 24:38.
I dont understand how someone could put arifiical limits on god's omnipotence, especially with time, space, and what it means to be present to mere humans. Part of the problem with omnipotence/omniscience is that they likely exist in a category that we can't even understand except by analogy in God
It isn't really artificial limits but more logical and metaphysical limits based on what we know of God and His nature. I bet you would agree that it is impossible for God to sin, but I could ask you why you would limit God's abilities in such an artificial way- it isn't a limitation but a perfection- God is bound by His own morally perfect nature. It is the same with God's perfectly logical nature as well- God's can't make 1+1=8 or create a square circle either and these aren't artificial limits or diminishments of God's power. It's the same with God and time, once one gains temporal location, extension and other temporal relations as well as tensed knowledge of an extrinsic creation as God did from the moment of creation (not just the Incarnation) then you can't go back to being timeless, it is as logically contradictory as supposing God could just one day make 1+1=6 or 7 on a whim.
Yes I believe God is eternal- eternality can come in one of two modes, one can be eternally temporal or eternally timeless. I believe God was timeless without creation and temporal with creation of the universe (including space and time itself). So yes from the moment God created the universe, He is fully temporal though He is not "inside time" since there is no "outside time" either, God is the creator and sustainer of everything including time itself, so time is "inside" God as it were, essentially it is grounded in God's now temporally changing nature.
@RealSeekers while Jimmy Akin has a real past, present, and future time theory, he argues that the eucharist is not even a time related issue (no time machine needed and Jesus humanity is bound by time.) So, in his view, it would be valid in all 3 perspectives.
@@krzy1446 So just to clarify, he takes a B-Theory of time to explain the Eucharist? If so, then yes that would admit Jesus has temporal dimensions but would make time tenseless which I think is provably false from Scripture itself but for other scientific and logical reasons as well. That said, if time is not a part of the solution then Luis' argument from the word remembrance must entail what I argued for as a Protestant, it is just remembrance via a re-enactment of the Lord's Supper- nothing more. Or worse, it is more and then as I think the Councl of Trent mentions, it would be a re-sacrifice in itself which violates Scripture. Anyways, if you have a link or video name where he outlines his notion of transubstantiation I'd love to see what he argues in his own words there.
@@RealSeekers I can't speak to Luis's argument. I also won't try to put words in Akin's mouth (and I don't believe he thinks the eucharist depends on any theory of time) except to note that he (and the early Christians who had no concept of time travel) disagree that Christ's un-bloody sacrifice (the mass/ eucharist) imposes in anyway upon Christ's bloody once for all sacrifice. Since I can't link to articles, you may be able to search google/ Jimmy's website for articles that are titled: "Jesus’ “Once for All” Sacrifice" and "Are the Past and the Future Real?" for his opinions on the mass's sacrifice and presentism, respecitvely. He has several articles related to time that are all philosophically consistent with the bible, including its teaching of the eucharistic sacrifice. My personal argument is that even if we grant a presentism view (which I believe is false for other reasons), the sacrifice in the mass is still valid. It is the same sacrifice (CCC 1367) with notable differences (one bloody and one unbloody). Christ's unbloody sacrificial ministry did not end with his bloody sacrifice on the cross, which is made clear by his constant intercession noted in Hebrews. We participate and re-present (make present) this sacrifice on earth with the Eucharistic sacrifice. Karl Broussard also has a good article on this "The One and Only Sacrifice of the Mass."
@RealSeekers I can’t speak to Luis’s argument and won’t try to put words in Akin’s mouth expect to say that I don’t believe his eucharistic sacrifice is dependent on any theory of time and that he (and the early Christians who evidently had no theory of time travel) disagree that the unbloody eucharistic sacrifice imposes in any way on Christ’s once for all bloody sacrifice. Googling or searching Jimmy’s website for “Jesus’ “Once for All” Sacrifice” and “Are the Past and the Future Real?” should pull up articles about the Eucharist and presentism, respectively. My personal argument is that the eucharistic sacrifice is valid even if we grant presentism (although I disagree with it for other reasons). This becomes clear when we realize that Jesus’s sacrificial ministry does not end with his bloody once for all sacrifice as noted in Hebrews. He is continuously interceding on our behalf in heaven as the high priest through his sacrifice where he does not suffer (unbloody). The eucharist and Christ’s are one single sacrifice (CCC 1367) that is re-presented (made present) on earth through the eucharistic sacrifice. So the sacrifice is happening with Christ’s sacrifice now in heaven.
That is an interesting observation, I'm not sure how you got this impression but let me just flat out deny it fully. There is one person (i.e., what philosophers call an individual essence or nature) with two full kind natures. So Jesus was one person who had all the essential properties of a divine kind of thing and who then acquired all the essential features of a human kind of thing (i.e., he became embodied in a body governed by the human genome).. I deny that Jesus was two persons in any way, shape or form. Believe it or not, I think it is Catholics and Orthodox, bound by the Councils who have to believe in two persons since I think a person can only only inherently have one will and one mind but one of the Councils speaks of Jesus having two wills- that makes no sense to me logically given what a person is, I can envision a person with one will experiencing conflicting desires but never having two wills. So for me, it is you guys who believe in Nestorianism if you follow the logical entailments of what the Councils say there.
@@TheChunkyCrusader I respect that has been the traditional perspective, but I just don't buy it on my end. It doesn't make sense to me to say that a nature has a will, a nature is just a set of essential properties and sets of properties don't have wills, people have wills, not natures in my books.
Well Marcissus, "this guy" (lol) is more than happy to change his mind, please simply point out the book, chapter and verse in the New Testament that explicitly says Jesus had a full soul and I will concede that my Christology is incorrect. Also, if you think Jesus had his own soul and presumably God the Father and Holy Spirit likewise have their own souls as well, Well then it follows that 3 souls = 3 spiritual substances = 3 separate divine beings and thus, doesn't this mean that you have a faulty view entailing Tri-Theism???- seems like it to me. No, God is one Tri-personal Being in other words, he is one spiritual substance = one soul with three persons contained therein.
@@RealSeekers the Father and HS are not human, they are spirit and thus do not have a soul. In the incarnation, God became fully man. He is fully man and fully God, he didn’t only appear to be man, he is fully man. This means that he took a human soul in the incarnation, since a soul is what animates a human body.
@@Marcissus Hmm OK, so there does seem to be a difference in terminology being used here, but let me see if I can adopt yours and still make my point then. But just FYI for me I think the spirit is a faculty of the soul itself (one that allows us to relate to God and God to relate to us). But for you the spirit seems to be the more fundamental entity- the thing itself, so OK let's use spirit here. Now, if the Father and Holy Spirit are separate spirits (and presumably Jesus' was also spirit in His pre-Incarnate form at least), this means you have three spirits and thus three substances = Tri-Theism. Or do you think that there is some other more fundamental substance (not spirit nor soul) that unites these three separate spirits into one substance/Being? The problem I see is that the Bible says humans have spirits and souls, but I do agree that the soul is the foundation for humans, it is what animates us as you put it, or more technically I think the human body is a manifestation of the soul- so I take a Metaphysical Aristotelean view of the soul rather than a Cartesian view (or same deal with the strawman ghost in the machine type view). So I agree Jesus is fully man, that means he has all the essential properties of a human being and so under my view God as a Being is one substance, a soul endowed with three persons and at the Incarnation, part of that soul containing the divine person of Jesus manifested a human body governed by the human genome and thus, he was fully human not just in appearance as He was during the OT theophanies but in ontological nature now. So I did mis-speak in the show when I said Jesus had no soul at all, clearly Jesus is part of a Tri-personal soul and so it's more accurate to say that the human body of Jesus had part of a soul that manifested/animated it. That's more accurate as to how I view it.
@reason&theology Transubstantiation is garbage.1John 4:2 Tells us that Jesus came in a real body. Came means in the past. It doesn't mean presesnt at every local catholic church. And in a real body means that Jesus was a real physical human being just like us. John is telling us that Jesus was visible to our senses. John also tells us to not deviate from this teaching. John wrote this in90 a.d many years after Jesus died. John did not tell anyone that Jesus was in the local catholic church every sunday in bread and wine. Catholics have changed the word of God and added something to the bible. If Jesus were the bread and wine then John is a liar because John makes it clear that Jesus was in a physical body not bread and wine. And if John is a liar then why do catholics have a bible? Why follow the bible if the bible lies. Because John is not a liar, that means catholics are liars. 1John3:6 tells us that sinners dont know God or understand Him. So catholics cant even teach anyone about God because they don't know God.
@ReasonandTheology So why don't you tell your audience why you think you can teach them about God when God Himself says that He doesn't know you michael? Don't you think your audience has a right to know? And SMH is not a response. Unless you can prove that you are not a sinner then you have no business claiming to teach anyone anything.
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0tYm41hb48o/mqdefault.jpg)
I will never leave the Catholic Church. I have been weak at times and have entertained other ideas but in the end the Catholic Church is the true Church which is the only Church that can trace itself to Christ and the Apostles.
*To whom shall we go?*
Both gentlemen were charitable and brotherly towards one another. Bravo for that above all! I used to be in Dale's camp, believing that The Lord's Supper is only a symbol. I had my theology all lined up, just like Dale. I even thought the Catholic view of Eucharist to be idolatrous. I don't think anyone can be convinced through intellectual or theological argument. I can tell you that only the Holy Spirit could change my mind, and that is what He did. I first consumed the Body and Blood of Jesus during an Episcopalian Eucharist service along about 1982. I decided to participate in unity with the Christians there, and told myself that it was only a symbol and remembrance of Jesus. (I can only tell you that I am glad that Communion is open to all baptized Christians in the Episcopal Church, or I wouldn't be a Catholic today.) When I knelt down at the rail, I believed Eucharist to be only a symbol. By the time I stood up, I knew otherwise. I actually tasted salty, metallic blood as I ate and drank. I didn't even know what a Eucharistic miracle was at the time. It literally changed my life! You know why I know it was Him? Because I stopped believing that Catholics weren't real Christians in that moment, and truly began to see them as brothers and sisters for the first time. It tore down that wall I had built in my heart against them. Also, I now know that Holy Eucharist is where heaven and earth meet. It is an intimacy with the Lord Jesus that you really have to experience to know it's true. I pray my brother Dale will open his heart to Christ in the Eucharist.
Interesting. On my end I will always be a Real Seeker and thus open to changing my mind if I'm proven wrong on something. For me, I never had the issue of assuming all Catholics are damned. I suppose with the Eucharistic miracles, my only issue is why given transubstantiation your experience isn't the experience of everyone at all times if the substance really changes. So when you or Luis appealed to Eucharistic miracles in the show, my only issue is that even if these miracles are true, it actually disproves the Catholic doctrine since such should always be the case in terms of literal transformation. But I do appreciate your sentiments and kind words here, I promise to keep an open mind to truth and I just ask that you do the same with respect to Protestantism as well unless you have 100% knowledge as I think that is the only time I would close my mind completely such as 1+1=2, I know that absolutely to be true, so I'm not open to 1+1=8 there.
@@RealSeekers a blessed Eucharist goes through a spiritual change, not a material one (usually). There have been countless Eucharistic miracles. But probably only 1% get reported to the public, since only the Vatican can investigate and declare these events. And not all Eucharistic miracles manifest in the same way….there have been reports of appearing/disappearing, multiplication, images, blood, etc. Why aren’t all Eucharist miracles the same? That’s up to God. He works in His own ways. To expect and demand that all miracles should work entirely the same way to prove anything (let alone the Truth of Catholicism) is a limited, human thought. We can not depend entirely on our minds to understand the vastness of God’s kingdom. But thankfully, God gave us enough intelligence and will to seek Him. - Peace
@@lilyd5596 Hi Lily, just to clarify, I fully agree with your point that we ought not to make demands for miracles of God, so I do renounce that kind of arrogance on our part towards God, God is not a genie after all. That said, I think my argument in the show is a little more nuanced, it recognizes the difference between essential and accidental properties for example, but I argued that the DNA is one of the essential properties of bread/wine and humanity and thus if there is a substantive change taking place as transubstantiation entails then there needs to be a DNA switch since that is part of the substance/essence of what bread/wine vs. human being are by nature- DNA can't be regarded as being irrelevant or merely accidental to the kind of substance that humans are or in the case of bread/wine, the kind of "property-thing" they are (bread and wine are purely physical entities and thus in mereology they are not substances in themselves but instead they are "property-things" whereby their unity is much looser).
I'm so glad I'm a Jew who became Catholic. This stuff is easy to debunk especially if you know the Hebrew Bible
God bless Nikki!
Amen! Glad the founders through God were charitable enough to allow the rest of us to join in your religion/faith. Eternally grateful.
I tell my friends all the time I wish I could learn more Jewish history so everything made more sense,.
Hi Dale and Luis,
I just finished listening to your debate on Transubstantiation. Excellent job! Congratulations to both of you!
At one point the two of you were talking about discerning the Body and Blood of Jesus in the Eucharist and whether a person would be damned to Hell if they didn’t. Luis, at about 2:01:50, said: “In Catholicism we would say that if anyone consciously rejects these things after it has been explained to them, they are anathema. Now, that's not the same as simply failing to understand. It's like an actual conscious rejection of these things after they've been explained to them. So ignorance is one of the things that has to be taken into consideration.” You then asked: “Just out of curiosity with that, would I be included there? Because I understand, I think I understand, the doctrine but I am saying I have reasons to reject it on a balance of probability.”
I’m no expert, but I think Luis may have overstated things a bit. Anathemas have sometimes been issued by the Catholic Church, but were pretty rare. The most recent “Code of Canon Law” from 1983 doesn’t even use the word and so, from what I can tell, there is no procedure in the Catholic Church today for an anathema to be issued. Also, looking at past canons, from different Church Councils, often they wouldn’t say the person was anathema but, rather, “let him be anathema”. For example, in the Council of Trent the first canon reads: “Canon 1. If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.” The actual anathemas were a procedure that involved the pope and were rarely done.
Also, as I understand it, anathema were/are only given by the Catholic Church to baptized Catholics. Non-Catholics cannot be anathemized as they are not part of the Catholic Church. So, even if the Catholic Church still issued anathemas, you wouldn’t get one.
Also, the Catholic Church sees a huge difference between the Eucharist that has been consecrated by a priest and the bread and wine prayed over by someone who has not received the sacrament of Holy Orders. So, the Catholic Church would say that if you received the Eucharist in a Catholic or Orthodox Church then you would be receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. But, if you were to receive it in a Protestant Church, where it wasn’t consecrated by a priest, then you would only be receiving bread and wine and NOT the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. So, if you have only received it in a non-Catholic or non-Orthodox Church then you have nothing to worry about.
Just some thoughts on one section where Luis might have overstated a few things.
Again, excellent show! Keep them coming!
Brian
I'm going to trust the people who were there or 200 or less years removed over an opinion of someone 2000 years removed.
I hear that a lot, but to be honest I think that is a fallacy since just because someone lived earlier than another person doesn't mean that their information is more likely to be reliable or true (John Lennox calls this chronological snobbery). Think about it, none of the Early Fathers before 200 A.D. had ready access to the entire Bible or the knowledge of Hebrew that modern scholars have access to- modern scholars are in a much better position to know the truth in some cases. So just wanted to counter that it's not as simplistic as well Ignatius lived 70-80 years after Jesus' Rez and we live 2000 years after therefore whatever Ignatius says is true. That said, yes it is also true that Ignatius likely had access to information that has long since been lost to history as well and so it should be both/and when considering what the true doctrines are.
Wow!! This debate just proved the need for a magisterial interpreter all the more imo!!
I don't know what dale was talking about with his metaphysics, but I find it very interesting that he relies on his metaphysics to interpret the Bible, rather than the Bible to interpret his metaphysics...
I think this is the thing I've found with Protestantism: just because you don't THINK you need/have a Pope/Magisterium to guide your interpretations of scripture, doesn't mean you haven't made a Pope/Magisterium OUT OF something else unfitting.
It's ok to admit the Bible is confusing, and that there are a great many mysteries about it, as well as some very confusing things... It's ok to admit that the Bible doesn't speak for itself to address all of those tough topics sufficiently enough to speak comprehensively on all possible interpretations of the text... In short, it's ok to admit the need for an infallible interpreter of Scripture. (i.e. the Pope's ex cathedra statements and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church)
Moreover, just because the Holy Spirit can inspire all people to perfectly understand the full, comprehensive meanings of Scripture passages doesn't mean he will always do so. God throughout the history of his love for mankind has always employed fallible human servants to do his work for him. Due to this, it is not crazy to suggest that the Holy Spirit could choose certain fallible human beings and empower them to speak infallibly on matters of serious importance of his church.
The Catholic doctrines surrounding Papal infallibility doesn't hold the Pope to be perfect in all things, (afterall the first Pope, Peter, surely wasn't and we have biblical evidence to prove it) instead it holds that, concerning ex cathedra statements, the Holy Spirit will guide fhe Pope into all truth and communion with those authorities wgove gone befire him
Trogo is only otherwised used in John 13:18, and matthew 24:38, Strongs ,5176 trogo, gnaw, chew, eat. It still supports literal eating but the other passages 1 Cor. 8:4 term is Strongs 1085 genos. Acts 10:10, Strongs 1089 genomai. John 6:13, Strongs 977, bibrosko. May want to update the argument. Yea, it is literal, but the only two non John 6 passages for trogo are only John 13:18 and Matthew 24:38.
I dont understand how someone could put arifiical limits on god's omnipotence, especially with time, space, and what it means to be present to mere humans. Part of the problem with omnipotence/omniscience is that they likely exist in a category that we can't even understand except by analogy in God
It isn't really artificial limits but more logical and metaphysical limits based on what we know of God and His nature. I bet you would agree that it is impossible for God to sin, but I could ask you why you would limit God's abilities in such an artificial way- it isn't a limitation but a perfection- God is bound by His own morally perfect nature. It is the same with God's perfectly logical nature as well- God's can't make 1+1=8 or create a square circle either and these aren't artificial limits or diminishments of God's power. It's the same with God and time, once one gains temporal location, extension and other temporal relations as well as tensed knowledge of an extrinsic creation as God did from the moment of creation (not just the Incarnation) then you can't go back to being timeless, it is as logically contradictory as supposing God could just one day make 1+1=6 or 7 on a whim.
Do people now, in heaven, without their bodies, retain their humanness??
Not in my view- no human body = not human.
A good one
@RealSeekers do you believe god is eternal, what does that mean to you, and is god inside of time?
Yes I believe God is eternal- eternality can come in one of two modes, one can be eternally temporal or eternally timeless. I believe God was timeless without creation and temporal with creation of the universe (including space and time itself). So yes from the moment God created the universe, He is fully temporal though He is not "inside time" since there is no "outside time" either, God is the creator and sustainer of everything including time itself, so time is "inside" God as it were, essentially it is grounded in God's now temporally changing nature.
@RealSeekers while Jimmy Akin has a real past, present, and future time theory, he argues that the eucharist is not even a time related issue (no time machine needed and Jesus humanity is bound by time.) So, in his view, it would be valid in all 3 perspectives.
@@krzy1446 So just to clarify, he takes a B-Theory of time to explain the Eucharist? If so, then yes that would admit Jesus has temporal dimensions but would make time tenseless which I think is provably false from Scripture itself but for other scientific and logical reasons as well. That said, if time is not a part of the solution then Luis' argument from the word remembrance must entail what I argued for as a Protestant, it is just remembrance via a re-enactment of the Lord's Supper- nothing more. Or worse, it is more and then as I think the Councl of Trent mentions, it would be a re-sacrifice in itself which violates Scripture. Anyways, if you have a link or video name where he outlines his notion of transubstantiation I'd love to see what he argues in his own words there.
@@RealSeekers I can't speak to Luis's argument. I also won't try to put words in Akin's mouth (and I don't believe he thinks the eucharist depends on any theory of time) except to note that he (and the early Christians who had no concept of time travel) disagree that Christ's un-bloody sacrifice (the mass/ eucharist) imposes in anyway upon Christ's bloody once for all sacrifice.
Since I can't link to articles, you may be able to search google/ Jimmy's website for articles that are titled:
"Jesus’ “Once for All” Sacrifice" and "Are the Past and the Future Real?" for his opinions on the mass's sacrifice and presentism, respecitvely. He has several articles related to time that are all philosophically consistent with the bible, including its teaching of the eucharistic sacrifice.
My personal argument is that even if we grant a presentism view (which I believe is false for other reasons), the sacrifice in the mass is still valid. It is the same sacrifice (CCC 1367) with notable differences (one bloody and one unbloody). Christ's unbloody sacrificial ministry did not end with his bloody sacrifice on the cross, which is made clear by his constant intercession noted in Hebrews. We participate and re-present (make present) this sacrifice on earth with the Eucharistic sacrifice.
Karl Broussard also has a good article on this "The One and Only Sacrifice of the Mass."
@RealSeekers I can’t speak to Luis’s argument and won’t try to put words in Akin’s mouth expect to say that I don’t believe his eucharistic sacrifice is dependent on any theory of time and that he (and the early Christians who evidently had no theory of time travel) disagree that the unbloody eucharistic sacrifice imposes in any way on Christ’s once for all bloody sacrifice.
Googling or searching Jimmy’s website for “Jesus’ “Once for All” Sacrifice” and “Are the Past and the Future Real?” should pull up articles about the Eucharist and presentism, respectively.
My personal argument is that the eucharistic sacrifice is valid even if we grant presentism (although I disagree with it for other reasons). This becomes clear when we realize that Jesus’s sacrificial ministry does not end with his bloody once for all sacrifice as noted in Hebrews. He is continuously interceding on our behalf in heaven as the high priest through his sacrifice where he does not suffer (unbloody). The eucharist and Christ’s are one single sacrifice (CCC 1367) that is re-presented (made present) on earth through the eucharistic sacrifice. So the sacrifice is happening with Christ’s sacrifice now in heaven.
❤
That thing he said about Jesus being corporeal and not omnipresent sounds a lot like Nestorianism
That is an interesting observation, I'm not sure how you got this impression but let me just flat out deny it fully. There is one person (i.e., what philosophers call an individual essence or nature) with two full kind natures. So Jesus was one person who had all the essential properties of a divine kind of thing and who then acquired all the essential features of a human kind of thing (i.e., he became embodied in a body governed by the human genome).. I deny that Jesus was two persons in any way, shape or form. Believe it or not, I think it is Catholics and Orthodox, bound by the Councils who have to believe in two persons since I think a person can only only inherently have one will and one mind but one of the Councils speaks of Jesus having two wills- that makes no sense to me logically given what a person is, I can envision a person with one will experiencing conflicting desires but never having two wills. So for me, it is you guys who believe in Nestorianism if you follow the logical entailments of what the Councils say there.
@@RealSeekers will follows from nature not person. Every rational nature has a will and since Jesus has 2 rational natures, he has 2 wills.
@@TheChunkyCrusader I respect that has been the traditional perspective, but I just don't buy it on my end. It doesn't make sense to me to say that a nature has a will, a nature is just a set of essential properties and sets of properties don't have wills, people have wills, not natures in my books.
“Jesus didn’t have a soul”
Oh good Lord, if this guy can’t get basic Christology correct how does he think he’s going to disprove the Eucharist
Well Marcissus, "this guy" (lol) is more than happy to change his mind, please simply point out the book, chapter and verse in the New Testament that explicitly says Jesus had a full soul and I will concede that my Christology is incorrect. Also, if you think Jesus had his own soul and presumably God the Father and Holy Spirit likewise have their own souls as well, Well then it follows that 3 souls = 3 spiritual substances = 3 separate divine beings and thus, doesn't this mean that you have a faulty view entailing Tri-Theism???- seems like it to me. No, God is one Tri-personal Being in other words, he is one spiritual substance = one soul with three persons contained therein.
@@RealSeekers the Father and HS are not human, they are spirit and thus do not have a soul. In the incarnation, God became fully man. He is fully man and fully God, he didn’t only appear to be man, he is fully man. This means that he took a human soul in the incarnation, since a soul is what animates a human body.
@@Marcissus Hmm OK, so there does seem to be a difference in terminology being used here, but let me see if I can adopt yours and still make my point then. But just FYI for me I think the spirit is a faculty of the soul itself (one that allows us to relate to God and God to relate to us). But for you the spirit seems to be the more fundamental entity- the thing itself, so OK let's use spirit here. Now, if the Father and Holy Spirit are separate spirits (and presumably Jesus' was also spirit in His pre-Incarnate form at least), this means you have three spirits and thus three substances = Tri-Theism. Or do you think that there is some other more fundamental substance (not spirit nor soul) that unites these three separate spirits into one substance/Being?
The problem I see is that the Bible says humans have spirits and souls, but I do agree that the soul is the foundation for humans, it is what animates us as you put it, or more technically I think the human body is a manifestation of the soul- so I take a Metaphysical Aristotelean view of the soul rather than a Cartesian view (or same deal with the strawman ghost in the machine type view). So I agree Jesus is fully man, that means he has all the essential properties of a human being and so under my view God as a Being is one substance, a soul endowed with three persons and at the Incarnation, part of that soul containing the divine person of Jesus manifested a human body governed by the human genome and thus, he was fully human not just in appearance as He was during the OT theophanies but in ontological nature now. So I did mis-speak in the show when I said Jesus had no soul at all, clearly Jesus is part of a Tri-personal soul and so it's more accurate to say that the human body of Jesus had part of a soul that manifested/animated it. That's more accurate as to how I view it.
@reason&theology Transubstantiation is garbage.1John 4:2 Tells us that Jesus came in a real body. Came means in the past. It doesn't mean presesnt at every local catholic church. And in a real body means that Jesus was a real physical human being just like us. John is telling us that Jesus was visible to our senses. John also tells us to not deviate from this teaching. John wrote this in90 a.d many years after Jesus died. John did not tell anyone that Jesus was in the local catholic church every sunday in bread and wine. Catholics have changed the word of God and added something to the bible. If Jesus were the bread and wine then John is a liar because John makes it clear that Jesus was in a physical body not bread and wine. And if John is a liar then why do catholics have a bible? Why follow the bible if the bible lies. Because John is not a liar, that means catholics are liars. 1John3:6 tells us that sinners dont know God or understand Him. So catholics cant even teach anyone about God because they don't know God.
smh
@ReasonandTheology So why don't you tell your audience why you think you can teach them about God when God Himself says that He doesn't know you michael? Don't you think your audience has a right to know?
And SMH is not a response. Unless you can prove that you are not a sinner then you have no business claiming to teach anyone anything.
so according to you Jesus was never begotten and is a time traveler you have neither reason or theology
Honestly, SMH is the only response to the tone of your comment, there is literally no reason to try and explain to you since you’re here to fight.
@@bibleman8010 Your comment makes absolutely no sense