Is the Eucharist only symbolic.

[polonius]

" Paschasius Radbertus was the first to formulate the doctrine of transubstantiation in the ninth century. He was opposed by Ratranmus, a contemporary monk at the monastery of Corbie. Ratranmus wrote: "The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a figurative sense" (De corpore et sanguine Christi). This controversy between two Catholic monks shows that both views were present in the Catholic church at least up to the eleventh century. The debate continued until the thirteenth century when the final decision was taken by the Lateran Council in 1215.

The Doctor of the Church, Duns Scotus, admits that transubstantiation was not an article of faith before that the thirteenth century"

[Athetotheist]

"What appears to be bread and wine in every way.....in fact is now the Body and Blood of Christ"

If what only appears to be gluten is now in fact the body of Jesus, then any harm it does can't be blamed on what it only appears to be. So which is more likely: that the body of Jesus would harm a sincere recipient of communion, or that transubstantiation just doesn't happen? Does it make any sense that the "deepest reality" of Jesus can't stop what appears to be gluten from hurting someone ?

You're reading more into the word "appears" here than is warranted.

The point the article is making is that, according to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the physical properties of the bread remain unchanged, and so the physical effects of the bread also remain unchanged.

Your objection to the doctrine based on the fact that the physical effects of the gluten in the bread remain unchanged is therefore based on a simple misunderstanding of what the doctrine entails.

Not to be flippant, but this reminds me of a comic routine I remember seeing. A "magician" had two cups turned upside down and put a little ball under one of them. He said the magic words and transported the ball from the first cup to the second, BUT he didn't lift the cups at that point; instead, he said the magic words again to move the ball back under the first cup---where it was in the first place---and only then did he lift the cups to show that he had accomplished the astounding feat.

How does a miracle which makes no discernible change qualify as miraculous?

[polonius]

[Replying to post 126 by MarysSon]

May I conclude that you don't have an objective criticism to each of the facts I presented?

Matthew writes that Jesus was born during the lifetime of King Herod (died in 4 AD) and Luke writes that Jesus was born during the 6 AD Roman census of Judea.

Those events were at least 10 years apart. Hence Mary had two sons named Jesus if the Gospels are true.

[MarysSon]

[Replying to post 126 by MarysSon]

May I conclude that you don't have an objective criticism to each of the facts I presented?

Matthew writes that Jesus was born during the lifetime of King Herod (died in 4 AD) and Luke writes that Jesus was born during the 6 AD Roman census of Judea.

Those events were at least 10 years apart. Hence Mary had two sons named Jesus if the Gospels are true.

And ONCE AGAIN - it appears that you didn't read my post.

I answered ALL of this by showing that the dates could be wrong, depending on WHICH lunar eclipse is being referred to in the writings of historian, Josephus (Antiquities).

I also showed that this is NOT some novel "new" discovery and has been argued by other experts and mathematicians in prior centuries. If anything - the idea that Herod died in 4 BC is the newer idea, historically-speaking.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 126 by MarysSon]

May I conclude that you don't have an objective criticism to each of the facts I presented?

Matthew writes that Jesus was born during the lifetime of King Herod (died in 4 AD) and Luke writes that Jesus was born during the 6 AD Roman census of Judea.

Those events were at least 10 years apart. Hence Mary had two sons named Jesus if the Gospels are true.

And ONCE AGAIN - it appears that you didn't read my post.

I answered ALL of this by showing that the dates could be wrong, depending on WHICH lunar eclipse is being referred to in the writings of historian, Josephus (Antiquities).

I also showed that this is NOT some novel "new" discovery and has been argued by other experts and mathematicians in prior centuries. If anything - the idea that Herod died in 4 BC is the newer idea, historically-speaking.

RESPONSE: "Could be"??? "Might be"???

Fact 1 Matthew reports Jesus was born during the lifetime of King Herod.

Fact 2 Luke reports Jesus was born, instead, during the 6AD Roman Census of Judea.

Fact 3 There is at least one error here. That is a fact.

Fact 4 The Bible is in error as facts 1-3 prove.

[polonius]

I also showed that this is NOT some novel "new" discovery and has been argued by other experts and mathematicians in prior centuries. If anything - the idea that Herod died in 4 BC is the newer idea, historically-speaking.

RESPONSE: Check out a relevant source, and then explain when and why
Herod's inheritor son succeeded Herod.

[MarysSon]

And ONCE AGAIN - it appears that you didn't read my post.

I answered ALL of this by showing that the dates could be wrong, depending on WHICH lunar eclipse is being referred to in the writings of historian, Josephus (Antiquities).

I also showed that this is NOT some novel "new" discovery and has been argued by other experts and mathematicians in prior centuries. If anything - the idea that Herod died in 4 BC is the newer idea, historically-speaking.

RESPONSE: "Could be"??? "Might be"???

Fact 1 Matthew reports Jesus was born during the lifetime of King Herod.

Fact 2 Luke reports Jesus was born, instead, during the 6AD Roman Census of Judea.

Fact 3 There is at least one error here. That is a fact.

Fact 4 The Bible is in error as facts 1-3 prove.

The only "Fact" you listed that is an actual fact is #1. Jesus WAS born during the lifetime of King Herod.
You skewed #2 to say that it occurred in 6 AD. #'s 3 & 4 are completely wrong. These are ALL based on YOUR preconceived ideas about the Lunar eclipse mentioned by Josephus in his "Antiquties" regarding Herod's reign.

As I pointed out - there were SEVERAL lunar eclipses - and some historians have chosen to simply pick one out of the pile to reconcile their timing of the birth of Christ. This consensus isn't an exact historical fact - but an educated opinion.

[polonius]

And ONCE AGAIN - it appears that you didn't read my post.

I answered ALL of this by showing that the dates could be wrong, depending on WHICH lunar eclipse is being referred to in the writings of historian, Josephus (Antiquities).

I also showed that this is NOT some novel "new" discovery and has been argued by other experts and mathematicians in prior centuries. If anything - the idea that Herod died in 4 BC is the newer idea, historically-speaking.

RESPONSE: "Could be"??? "Might be"???

Fact 1 Matthew reports Jesus was born during the lifetime of King Herod.

Fact 2 Luke reports Jesus was born, instead, during the 6AD Roman Census of Judea.

Fact 3 There is at least one error here. That is a fact.

Fact 4 The Bible is in error as facts 1-3 prove.

The only "Fact" you listed that is an actual fact is #1. Jesus WAS born during the lifetime of King Herod.
You skewed #2 to say that it occurred in 6 AD. #'s 3 & 4 are completely wrong. These are ALL based on YOUR preconceived ideas about the Lunar eclipse mentioned by Josephus in his "Antiquties" regarding Herod's reign.

As I pointed out - there were SEVERAL lunar eclipses - and some historians have chosen to simply pick one out of the pile to reconcile their timing of the birth of Christ. This consensus isn't an exact historical fact - but an educated opinion.

RESPONSE: Let's stick to the relevant point. Upon his death, King Herod was succeeded by his son. His son ruled of seven years and than was replaced by a Roman governor when Judea became a Roman territory.

The Roman governor ordered a census for tax purposes in 6 AD. Luke reports Jesus being born during this census. Matthew reported that Jesus was born during King Herod's lifetime.

But feel free to distort the facts of history perhaps to fit you belief system. Alternately, you can consult the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Catholic Encyclopedia, even Wikipedia. And you might check the New American Bible, Catholic Edition

I'm afraid your posts have damaged your credibility.

On Herod’s death, Rome decreed that Archelaus succeed his father as ruler of Judea and that two other sons become independent princes, or tetrarchs​—Antipas over Galilee and Perea, Philip over Iturea and Trachonitis. Archelaus proved unpopular with his subjects and masters.

“In the Days of Herod the King� - JW.ORG