Skip to comments.Some Megachurches Closing for Christmas
Posted on 12/06/2005 3:32:33 PM PST by franky
This Christmas, no prayers will be said in several megachurches around the country. Even though the holiday falls this year on a Sunday, when churches normally host thousands for worship, pastors are canceling services, anticipating low attendance on what they call a family day.
Critics within the evangelical community, more accustomed to doing battle with department stores and public schools over keeping religion in Christmas, are stunned by the shutdown.
It is almost unheard of for a Christian church to cancel services on a Sunday, and opponents of the closures are accusing these congregations of bowing to secular culture.
"This is a consumer mentality at work: `Let's not impose the church on people. Let's not make church in any way inconvenient,'" said David Wells, professor of history and systematic theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, a leading evangelical school in Hamilton, Mass. "I think what this does is feed into the individualism that is found throughout American culture, where everyone does their own thing." The churches closing on Christmas plan multiple services in the days leading up to the holiday, including on Christmas Eve. Most normally do not hold Christmas Day services, preferring instead to mark the holiday in the days and night before. However, Sunday worship has been a Christian practice since ancient times.
Cally Parkinson, a spokeswoman for Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Ill., said church leaders decided that organizing services on a Christmas Sunday would not be the most effective use of staff and volunteer resources. The last time Christmas fell on a Sunday was 1994, and only a small number of people showed up to pray, she said.
"If our target and our mission is to reach the unchurched, basically the people who don't go to church, how likely is it that they'll be going to church on Christmas morning?" she said. Among the other megachurches closing on Christmas Day are Southland Christian Church in Nicholasville, Ky., near Lexington, and Fellowship Church in Grapevine, Texas, outside of Dallas. North Point Community Church in Alpharetta, Ga., outside of Atlanta, said on its Web site that no services will be held on Christmas Day or New Year's Day, which also falls on a Sunday. A spokesman for North Point did not respond to requests for comment.
The closures stand in stark contrast to Roman Catholic parishes, which will see some of their largest crowds of the year on Christmas, and mainline Protestant congregations such as the Episcopal, Methodist and Lutheran churches, where Sunday services are rarely if ever canceled.
Cindy Willison, a spokeswoman for the evangelical Southland Christian Church, said at least 500 volunteers are needed, along with staff, to run Sunday services for the estimated 8,000 people who usually attend. She said many of the volunteers appreciate the chance to spend Christmas with their families instead of working, although she said a few church members complained.
"If we weren't having services at all, I would probably tend to feel that we were too accommodating to the secular viewpoint, but we're having multiple services on Saturday and an additional service Friday night," Willison said. "We believe that you worship every day of the week, not just on a weekend, and you don't have to be in a church building to worship."
Troy Page, a spokesman for Fellowship Church, said the congregation was hardly shirking its religious obligations. Fellowship will hold 21 services in four locations in the days leading up to the holiday. Last year, more than 30,000 worshippers participated. "Doing them early allows you to reach people who may be leaving town Friday," Page said.
These megachurches are not alone in adjusting Sunday worship to accommodate families on Christmas. But most other congregations are scaling back services instead of closing their doors.
First Baptist Church in Daytona Beach, Fla., led by the Rev. Bobby Welch, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, will hold one service instead of the usual two. New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo., led by the Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, will hold one Sunday service instead of the typical three.
Nope. Don't matter.
We know that it would look like bread and wine under the tests.
But its real substance is the Body and Blood.
Every now and then, though, something like this happens:
The miracle occurred on Easter Sunday, March 31, 1331, at the first Mass of the day, which was offered by Hugues de la Baume, the vicar of Blanot. Because of the solemn occasion, two men of the parish named Thomas Caillot and Guyot Besson were also serving in addition to the altar boys. At Communion time the two men approached the altar railing, took their places at each end and turned the long cloth over the railing. The parishioners took their places, held their hands under the cloth and waited for the approach of the priest.
One of the last to receive was a woman named Jacquette, described as being the widow of Regnaut d'Effour. The priest placed the Host on her tongue, turned, and started walking toward the altar. It was then that both men and a few of the communicants saw the Host fall from the woman's mouth and land upon the cloth that covered her hands. As the priest was then placing the ciborium inside the tabernacle, Thomas Caillot approached the altar and informed him of the accident. The priest immediately left the altar and approached the railing; but instead of finding the Host, he saw a spot of blood the same size as the Host, which had apparently dissolved into blood.
When the Mass was completed, the priest took the cloth into the sacristy and placed the stained area in a basin filled with clear water. After washing the spot and scrubbing it with his fingers numerous times he found that, far from becoming smaller and lighter, it had actually become larger and much darker. On removing the cloth from the basin he was surprised to find that the water had turned bloody. The priest and his assistants were not only astonished, but also frightened, and exclaimed, "This is the Precious Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ!" The priest then took a knife and, after washing it, cut from the cloth the piece bearing the bloody imprint of the Host. This square piece of cloth was reverently placed in the tabernacle.
In 1263 a German priest, Peter of Prague, stopped at Bolsena while on a pilgrimage to Rome. He is described as being a pious priest, but one who found it difficult to believe that Christ was actually present in the consecrated Host. While celebrating Holy Mass above the tomb of St. Christina (located in the church named for this martyr), he had barely spoken the words of Consecration when blood started to seep from the consecrated Host and trickle over his hands onto the altar and the corporal.
The priest was immediately confused. At first he attempted to hide the blood, but then he interrupted the Mass and asked to be taken to the neighboring city of Orvieto, the city where Pope Ur ban IV was then residing.
The Pope listened to the priest's account and absolved him. He then sent emissaries for an immediate investigation. When all the facts were ascertained, he ordered the Bishop of the diocese to bring to Orvieto the Host and the linen cloth bearing the stains of blood. With archbishops, cardinals and other Church dignitaries in attendance, the Pope met the procession and, amid great pomp, had the relics placed in the cathedral. The linen corporal bearing the spots of blood is still reverently enshrined and exhibited in the Cathedral of Orvieto.
Dr. Edoardo Linoli says he held real cardiac tissue in his hands, when some years ago he analyzed the relics of the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, Italy.
The phenomenon dates back to the eighth century. A Basilian monk, who had doubts about the real presence of Christ in the sacred species, was offering Mass, in a church dedicated to St. Legontian in the town of Lanciano.
When he pronounced the words of the consecration, the host was miraculously changed into physical flesh and the wine into physical blood.
Later the blood coagulated and the flesh remained the same. These relics were kept in the cathedral.
Linoli, a professor of anatomy and pathological histology, and of chemistry and clinical microscopy, and former head of the Laboratory of Pathological Anatomy at the Hospital of Arezzo, is the only doctor who has analyzed the relics of the miracle of Lanciano. His findings have stirred interest in the scientific world.
At the initiative of Archbishop Pacifico Perantoni of Lanciano, and of the provincial minister of the Franciscan Conventuals of Abruzzo, and with authorization from Rome, in November 1970 the Franciscans of Lanciano decided to have the relics examined scientifically.
Linoli was entrusted with the study. He was assisted by Dr. Ruggero Bertelli, retired professor of human anatomy at the University of Siena.
Linoli extracted parts of the relics with great care and then analyzed the remains of "miraculous flesh and blood." He presented his findings on March 4, 1971.
His study confirmed that the flesh and blood were of human origin. The flesh was unequivocally cardiac tissue, and the blood was of type AB.
So it was that on August 14, 1730, during devotions for the vigil of the feast, while most of the Sienese population and the clergy of the city were attending these services, thieves entered the deserted Church of St. Francis. Taking advantage of the friars' absence, they made for the chapel where the Blessed Sacrament was kept, picked the lock to the tabernacle and carried away the golden ciborium containing consecrated Hosts.
The theft went undiscovered until the next morning, when the priest opened the tabernacle at the Communion of the Mass. Then later, when a parishioner found the lid of the ciborium lying in the street, the suspicion of sacrilege was confirmed. The anguish of the parishioners forced the cancellation of the traditional festivities for the feast of Our Lady's Assumption. The Archbishop ordered public prayers of reparation, while the civil authorities began a search for the consecrated Hosts and for the scoundrel who had taken them.
Two days later, on August 17, while praying in the Church of St. Mary of Provenzano, a priest's attention was directed to something white protruding from the offering box attached to his prie dieu. Realizing that it was a Host, he informed the other priests of the church, who in turn notified the Archbishop and the friars of the Church of St. Francis.
When the offering box was opened, in the presence of local priests and the representative of the Archbishop, a large number of Hosts were found, some of them suspended by cobwebs. The Hosts were compared with some unconsecrated ones used in the Church of St. Francis, and proved to be exactly the same size and to have the same mark of the irons upon which they were baked. The number of Hosts corresponded exactly to the number the Franciscan friars had estimated were in the ciborium -- 348 whole Hosts and six halves.
Since the offering box was opened but once a year, the Hosts were covered with the dust and debris that had collected there. After being carefully cleaned by the priests, they were enclosed in a ciborium and placed inside the tabernacle of the main altar of the Church of St. Mary. The following day, in the company of a great gathering of townspeople, Archbishop Alessandro Zondadari carried the Sacred Hosts in solemn procession back to the Church of St. Francis.
During the two centuries that followed it has sometimes been wondered why the Hosts were not consumed by a priest during Mass, which would have been the ordinary procedure in such a case. While there is no definite answer, there are two theories. One explanation is that crowds of people from both Sienna and neighboring cities gathered in the church to offer prayers of reparation before the sacred particles, forcing the priests to conserve them for a time. The other reason the priests did not consume them might well have been because of their soiled condition. While the Hosts were superficially cleaned after their discovery, they still retained a great deal of dirt. In such cases it is not necessary to consume consecrated Hosts, but it is permitted to allow them to deteriorate naturally, at which time Christ would no longer be present.
To the amazement of the clergy, the Hosts did not deteriorate, but remained fresh and even retained a pleasant scent. With the passage of time the Conventual Franciscans became convinced that they were witnessing a continuing miracle of preservation.
Fifty years after the recovery of the stolen Hosts, an official investigation was conducted into the authenticity of the miracle. The Minister General of the Franciscan Order, Father Carlo Vipera, examined the Hosts on April 14, 1780, and upon tasting one of them he found it fresh and incorrupt. Since a number of the Hosts had been distributed during the preceding years, the Minister General ordered that the remaining 230 particles be placed in a new ciborium and forbade further distribution.
A more detailed investigation took place in 1789 by Archbishop Tiberio Borghese of Sienna with a number of theologians and other dignitaries. After examining the Hosts under a microscope, the commission declared that they were perfectly intact and showed no sign of deterioration. The three Franciscans who had been present at the previous investigation, that of 1780, were questioned under oath by the Archbishop. It was then reaffirmed that the Hosts under examination were the same ones stolen in 1730.
As a test to further confirm the authenticity of the miracle, the Archbishop, during this 1789 examination, ordered several unconsecrated hosts to be placed in a sealed box and kept under lock in the chancery office. Ten years later these were examined and found to be not only disfigured, but also withered. In 1850, 61 years after they were placed in a sealed box, these unconsecrated hosts were found reduced to particles of a dark yellow color, while the consecrated Hosts retained their original freshness.
These things still happen. I know a priest who had something like this happen to him, too, although the local bishop didn't want to make much of it either.
In a day where people are uncomfortable that supernatural things can happen, there is a lot of disbelief, but that's like how Thomas Hardy chose to refuse to believe in God even
though he wrote about how he longed for God to give him a sign that he existed. The signs are there. People may choose to think they're hokey,and that's ok for them, I guess, but some of us are happy to say, "Thank you, Jesus" for what he has shown us.
You've been given links to material explaining transubstantiation. You've been given simple explanation of sccidents and substance. This is surely not the first time for either of these.
Now, you can either read the material and pose a reasonable question, or you can continue to feign ignorance.
Perhaps you have some scientific evidence that the elements have literally changed?
Please study the subject of accidents and substance, then explain why this question is postulated on an erroneous inderstanding. Then we can begin discussing the topic.
You don't understand transubstantiation. Go read the article I provided you. It answers your question.
Consider also, a significant part of Jesus' ministry was dedicated to teaching His followers through parables. When a parable was told, He used the phrase, "like unto". The equivalent here would be Jesus saying, "the bread of life IS LIKE UNTO..." He didn't, though. He stated clearly, "the bread that I will give IS my flesh..." He did NOT state, "the bread I will give is LIKE UNTO my flesh"...
Also, get a load of this:
The Pharisees have approached Jesus and asked Him why His apostles are neglecting the tradition of washing their hands before eating.
Jesus says to them, "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."
Okay. So here come the Apostles, and they know what He just said is going to stir up trouble with the Pharisees.
"12 Then came his disciples, and said to him: Dost thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized? 13 But he answering them, said: Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. 14 Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit."
Now here's the important part: Who approaches Jesus at this point, and what does he say?
The answer is "PETER". And what does Peter say?
"15 And Peter answering, said to him: Expound to us this PARABLE." Peter in Matthew 15, is saying to Jesus, "okay, now tell us what you mean by what you're saying".
What is Jesus' response?
"16 But he said: Are you also yet without understanding? 17 Do you not understand, that whatsoever entereth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the privy? 18 But the things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man. 19 For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. 20 These are the things that defile a man. But to eat with unwashed hands doth not defile a man."
Jesus has rebuked Peter's notion that He was speaking symbolically about what goes in and what comes out being unholy. He's telling him, "I was speaking plainly to you. Are you telling me you STILL don't understand what I'm saying?"
Fast forward to John 6.
What's happening here? Something controversial is being taught. It's so shocking, in fact, it's scattering the flock. The Jews "murmured" the same way they murmured about the manna in the desert! Manna, a spiritual food with physical appearance! (what does that sound like?)
Jesus says, "51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven." Manna was the bread that came down from heaven, created to be consumed. In the desert, they murmured; here, they murmur again.
Jesus explains, "56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. "
No ambiguity here. "This is what you MUST do". For something that bears the weight of life and death of the soul, it's a little ridiculous to think He'd be playing 20 questions about "what He really means".
What's the response here?
"61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?
Jesus responds to their disbelief:
62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing.
Jesus is saying, "if this is how you react to this teaching, how will you react when you see Me coming in my glory when I return?" The SPIRIT (read: FAITH) quickeneth. The flesh can do NOTHING for us. Jesus is telling them they have to take it on FAITH that His teaching is true because the flesh cannot comprehend the miracle of the Eucharist.
Okay, almost everyone splits at that point. Jesus turns to His disciples and says, "Will you also go away?"
Jesus has the same reaction here as He did in His literal teaching above in Matthew: "You, too? You don't understand this teaching, either? Are you going to bolt, as well?"
Guess who speaks up. It's the same guy Jesus rebuked in Matthew for trying to treat His teaching above like it was some parable or a "representation" of something different :
And what does Peter say?
"Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 70 And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God." To believe in the Eucharist is to believe the words of Simon Peter.
This wasn't a parable. It wasn't "symbolism". It was plainly spoken and it was iron-clad. Enough so that his disciples ran away.
And do you know what verse that was?
The only place in the Bible where a "chapter 6, verse 66 occurs" - the rejection of the teaching of the Holy Eucharist.
At this point the "miracles" you reference are anectdotal. If in fact there were a literal physcial presence, then these miracles would be present at every communion. They're not. If they still occur today, then the only way to make a determination that they are the actual blood and flesh of Christ is to do a DNA test everytime the miracle occurred. If the DNA matched in all cases, then I think your case would be much stronger.
Right now, however, since the elements do not change physically, then the evidence suggests that there really is no physical change. It may well change literally on a spiritual level, but on a physical level there really is no scientific evidence that suggests that it really happens.
It is an exercise in Faith and not an exercise in digestion.
Just explain it in your own words. If you have to rely upon an article, then I suspect that you don't really understand it either. You are leaning on the understanding of others.
The term "physical" is a bit of a problem. Modern science usually claims that a "physical change" is one that is physically observable. If that's your definition of "physical change," then we don't claim that transubstantiation is a "physical change".
*However*, there is also nothing physically observable about a Galilean carpenter preaching on a hilltop that would cause you to conclude that he's God the Son incarnate in human flesh, and not just a Galilean carpenter. Yet, when Mary carried him as a baby, she literally, physically, carried her God around in her hands. (That's essentially a quotation from Mr. Luther, if you're interested.)
So -- if you're an orthodox Christian -- you already have to reject the materialist supposition that a physically observable change or quality is the only kind that matters.
All miracles are anecdotal by definition.
She's not the one asking nonsensical questions.
It's very simple. Accidents are how an object appears. Substance is what an object is.
In transubstantiation (literally "a change in substance") the substance changes, but the accidents (or "appearances") do not.
End of lesson.
Because he doesn't need to demonstrate it.
If signs and wonders are demanded, God often says, Tough.
But sometimes he gives them as presents.
Since there is no scientific evidence for any change in actual substance, is there any scriptural support for these so called "accidents" and "appearances" and "transubstantiation"?
No. You don't understand the terms as used. Please read the material already referenced. Campion's post is enlightening as well.
You can't use your senses or scientific instruments to probe and observe "substances." By definition, you can only observe and probe accidents.
You mean when God himself says "my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink ... take, eat, this is my body ... take, drink, this cup is the new covenant in my blood" that's not enough "scriptural support" for you to take him at his word?
Thanks! I TRIED to explain that distinction between accidents/appearances and substance/essence . . . but didn't do very well, apparently.
Then why the emphasis on calling it a "phsycial" presence?
In fact, it is a "mystical presence" even by your own definition. From a mystical or spiritual standpoint it is a "literal presence" but to call it a "physical presence" is to call it something that it is not. From a physical standpoint the substance remains bread and water.
I believe you can make a legitimate argument that from a mystical or spiritual standpoint the mystical substance of the bread is literally change to the literal substance of Christ's body and blood, but to call it a "physical presence" is to deny reality. I will accept that you believe it is literally Christ's body and blood, but I don't believe you can legitimately call it "physically" his body and blood.
But then I suppose such an interpretation might upset the apple cart of long held non-scriptural traditions.
Um... the Last Supper?
"This is My body, given up for you."
This is where you interrupt this solemn moment and interject, "No it's not. It's still just a piece of bread since it doesn't look like a piece of flesh. How can it be your body? Because you just told me it is? When will You stop talking in riddles? And why is your last meal part of Divinely Inspired Sacred Scripture? It's just bread and wine, so what?"
I agree and I responded.
It is "physical" in the sense that it occupies a location in the world. As opposed to a purely spiritual presence. It is "physical" inasmuch as one can see it, feel it, smell it, taste it, etc. The Presence is physical, in this world, tangible. What we mean when we say the Real Presence is that it is truly God and it is truly present right in front of our eyes.
"In transubstantiation (literally "a change in substance") the substance changes, but the accidents (or "appearances") do not."
When the Lord's Supper was instituted Jesus had not been crucified and was still in His natural body. He ate of the same bread and drank of the same cup that the disciples did which he declared to be His body and blood. He then said He would not drink of the cup again until in the Kingdom of God. Why would Jesus eat of His own flesh and drink of His own blood and then state He would not drink of His blood until in the Kingdom unless they were meant to be symbols, memorials? They could not be substance since He had not received His glorified body.
" ???? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. I take a slightly different POV."
John 1:14, "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."
That's His birthday.
While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
That's what happened on His birthday.
If the presence is "physical" then 3 questions: What does it look like? What does it smell like? What does it taste like?
The greatest proof of transubstantiation is staring everyone on this board in the face. The transubstantiation of the Eucharist was foreshadowed by the greatest act of transubstantiation ever know:
took on all the outward appearances of a man...
on Christmas day.
And a happy Advent to you!
Or you could cite :
Mark. 12:28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating.
Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer,
he asked him,
Of all the commandments, which is the most important?
Mark. 12:29 The most important one, answered Jesus, is this:
`Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.
[Or the Lord our God is one Lord]
Mark. 12:30 Love the Lord your God
with all your heart
and with all your soul
and with all your mind
and with all your strength. [Deut. 6:4,5]
Many believe that Mark was Peter's scribe
You aren't going to get me to budge. But that's ok. Love you anyway.
Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore,
Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more,
See, Lord, at thy service low lies here a heart
Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art.
Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived:
How says trusty hearing? that shall be believed;
What God's Son has told me, take for truth I do;
Truth himself speaks truly or there's nothing true.
On the cross thy godhead made no sign to men,
Here thy very manhood steals from human ken:
Both are my confession, both are my belief,
And I pray the prayer of the dying thief.
I am not like Thomas, wounds I cannot see,
But can plainly call thee Lord and God as he;
Let me to a deeper faith daily nearer move,
Daily make me harder hope and dearer love.
O thou our reminder of Christ crucified,
Living Bread, the life of us for whom he died,
Lend this life to me then: feed and feast my mind,
There be thou the sweetness man was meant to find.
Bring the tender tale true of the Pelican;
Bathe me, Jesu Lord, in what thy bosom ran---
Blood whereof a single drop has power to win
All the world forgiveness of its world of sin.
Jesu, whom I look at shrouded here below,
I beseech thee send me what I thirst for so,
Some day to gaze on thee face to face in light
And be blest for ever with thy glory's sight. Amen.
(translation of Gerard Manley Hopkins, S.J.)
Bread. Bread. Bread. Did Jesus's appearance as a mere man make Him not God?
That could be. Peter must have taught him, at any rate.
It was not an "appearance" of being a man. The Word became Flesh! That was literal and physical and not merely some kind of mystical change in substance.
Using your analogy, Jesus must have become... bread.
I'm not trying to change your thinking nor do I question your faith. Just trying to understand the basis for the theology of transubstantion. By the way, Hopkins is one of my favorite poets. I have used his poems as illustrations in the classes I teach.
So now God has taken on all the outward appearances of... bread.
I don't think so. Jesus did not merely come and make an outward appearance as a man, he became a man. The Word became Flesh and dwelt among us. Your analogy is somewhat akin to Gnosticism which claimed that Jesus really didn't have a body of flesh, he just took on the appearance of having a body of flesh. I think you may wish to reconsider your comments.
All those front loaders look blued to be.
What happened to Browning ?
My Thompson/center barrel is browned.
It starts with the words of Jesus, then we trace it through St. Paul then toa whole line of what people actually taught from the end of the first century through.
Between the continuity of teaching (very important to me, and probably one of the biggest factors) and the eucharistic miracles, and some of my own personal experience which I will not get into here, with that being personal between me and God, I don't have any trouble with believing it.
Sing, my tongue,
The mystery of the glorious body,
And of the precious Blood,
Shed to save the world,
By the King of the nations,
The fruit of a noble womb.
Given to us, born for us,
From a stainless Virgin,
And having dwelt in the world,
Sowing the seed of the word,
He closed in a wonderful way,
The days of his habitation.
On the night of His last supper,
Reclining with His brothers,
The law having been fully observed
With legal foods,
He gives Himself as food with His
Own hands to the twelve.
The Word in Flesh makes true Bread
His Flesh with a word;
Wine becomes the Blood of Christ,
And if sense is deficient,
To confirm sincere hearts,
Faith alone suffices.
Then let us prostrate and
Venerate so great a Sacrament,
And let the old law yield
To the new rite;
Let faith stand forward to
Supply the defect of the senses.
To the Begetter and the Begotten,
Be praise and jubilation,
Health, honor, and strength,
And blessing too,
And let equal praise be to Him,
Who proceeds from Both.
Would your vaunted scientific tests have found anything in Jesus other than regular humanhood?
Don't try to twist words around once we have pained to define them for you. Jesus "appeared" as a man. Yet His substance was that of man and God hypostatically united.
Do you believe that?
Is it observable? Is it testable?
Was God present on earth in Jesus even though our senses told us otherwise?
Yes, the language is sloppy to say Jesus took on the "appearances" of man. I grant you that.
But you know we know what the Incarnation is all about and our Christology is solid. So address the issue I outlined in my last post.
If you can grant that things may not be what they appear, then you can grant that transubstantiation is a possiblity. The substance of Jesus was not what the accidents (better word than appearance for this argument)would have you believe.
The black oxide produced by bluing is harder and looks nice, so that's what I've used.
I think your analogy of Jesus becoming flesh and bread becoming flesh becoming Jesus breaks down do the fact when Jesus was here on earth He was who He said He was, the Son of God. When He was conceived He was God. When He was born He was God. When He lived here He was God. When He died in the flesh and was resurrected in the glorified flesh He was God. There was no mystical change in His person nor was there one when the Lord's Supper was instituted. For the elements to be changed into His actual flesh and blood would have been a gross violation of the Mosaic law that even Paul and the Jerusalem Council did not countermand in the letter to the Galatian churches.
And when He gave the Bread of Life discourse and when He instituted the Eucarist, He was doing what He said He was doing. The analogy only breaks down if you lack faith that He meant what He said.
For the elements to be changed into His actual flesh and blood would have been a gross violation of the Mosaic law that even Paul and the Jerusalem Council did not countermand in the letter to the Galatian churches.
Sunds ghastly, doesn't it? That's why so many left Him after the John 6 discourse. He did not correct them in takng Him at face value.
T/C kits only came in raw mill blank barrels
one needed to flat file and brown the barrel.
Any Rendezvous camp that I was in anyone with
a blued gun would be treated as a "Pilgrim" and
"And when He gave the Bread of Life discourse and when He instituted the Eucarist, He was doing what He said He was doing"
This won't be the first time that I appear obtuse but I still don't understand why it was necessary for Jesus to eat His own flesh and drink His own blood at the Lord's Supper. He said to the disciples that if they did not participate they had no part in Him and yet He participated in the same supper. It seems more logical that this was a memorial meal and He was the host rather than the main course, and I don't mean that to be sarcasm.
I also built the one in the pic. I doubt the ridiculars knew that the word browning included the blue color. As I said, the blue color was hard to get. Many ended up brown, because of technique. How many of the detractors browned there barrels with lye and saltpeter as I did, or used a browning box? I'll bet Birchwood-Casey, or some other commercial solution. Did they use Maple for the gunstocks?
I don't know of many guns from the 19th, or the early 20th century that have their original color. They came out of the factory a perfect blue and are now brown. That's, because the black oxide converts to the red in air over time.
Talking antique guns? My hubby has a nice little collection of originals, a few repros, he has a parker hale repro enfield, and we both have repro flinters.
We do have some 19 c indian war era bayonets that have some of their bluing. I can't remember without going into the gun safe if any of the earlier rifles looked blue. His oldest pieces seem to be from the late 1830s/early forties. All percussion.
Hubby and I re-enact Federalist period in part cause I told him to buy a repro gun that was not Victorian ( He has a late Lancaster style flinter). I didn't want to reenact plains or nez perce indian women, and there weren't a lot of white women around the camp at the Fur era Rendezvous. And I was tired of the politics of CW events...
In case you might be interested, I have pics of his flinter and one of his most interesting, and oldest guns here:
LOL! Ya'll were afraid of being traded for a handful of beads and a jug wern't cha?
Just kidding. Nice pics of the Lancaster.
I have a T/C Hawken .50 cal rifle kit
and a matching plains .50 cal pistol.
These and outfits to reenact
the 1830's fur trade in the Rockies.
My understanding is that Bluing for gun metal
was not invented until the 1880's. Hence all gun barrels were Browned.
I've been to a couple of NMLRA Western events.
OBTW I train NMLRA Certified Instructors for the Boy Scouts.
Cool. I go to Fort Bridger every year. My hubby's a full member of the ALRA (American Longrifle Association) which does French and Indian war through war of 1812. I have a particular interest in the early side of the Fur Trade, with Manuel Lisa and the Chouteaus, say up through about the beginning of the Rendezvous period.
Naw, Indian woman's too valuable. Who you think prepped all them furs? Kept the menfolk in moccassins?
Did you get to the bottom pictures? That's an unusual rifle. We think it was from ca. 1835 -1840. Underhammer. It's signed, and we've id'd the gunsmith, but I forgot the name.
I have in hardback a two volume edition of
_A history of the American Fur Trade of the far west_
by Hiram Martin Chittenden
published originally in 1902
an excellent resource for that time period.
Transubstantiation is a possibility and I suppose so is the idea that Jesus was made of bread. The problem is that all evidence points to the fact that no "transubstantiation" takes place and that from a physical standpoint the bread starts out as bread and ends up as bread and nothing physical occurs to change it.
Your idea that things may not seem as they appear brings up an interesting premise. The earth appears to be 6 Billion years old, but the bible states that it was created about 6000 years ago in six days. Yet most Catholics scoff at the idea that God literally created the universe in 6 days, yet they buy into the idea that the bread is really flesh despite the fact that by all appearances it is nothing more than bread.
Why can't you guys buy into a 6 day creation if you so readily accept that something that is by all "appearances" bread is really human flesh?
This is in the vein of the Joel Osteen/John Hagee cult of the individual. Worship God only when convenient and then only out of the idea of getting ahead in THIS world.
You are not asserting merely that God is in the bread.
You are asserting that the bread is God.
Isn't that true?