RESPONSE: Yes, but "The Lord izzz my shepherd" and "The Lord izzz my rock" are NOT literal, which means at the very least, you must curb your enthusiasm. Herein lies the crux of the debate. "This izzz the will of the Father" is a literal statement; but, "My food izzz to do the will of him that sent me" is a metaphorical one (John 4:34). Thus, "This is my body" requires searching the Scriptures as to the will of God regarding Transubstantiation (John 5:39).
Let's go back to M-16 quoting 6:57...
"As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on me will live because of me".
The Lord compares the dual truths that since he lives because of the Father, we shall likewise live because of Jesus. Rome is convinced that the "because of me" segment in the second half, means to eat Jesus via the Eucharist in light of his command to "feed" on him. But this cannot be true because Rome ignores the parallel made with the Father in the first half, which refutes them. In other words, having established that the food Jesus "eats" is metaphorical in nature (John 4:34) there can be nothing objectionable to read the first part of the verse as follows...
"As the living Father has sent me to feed on his will..."
That said, if the metaphorical food Jesus eats is the will of God, then the food which we eat must likewise be metaphorical; namely, that we "eat" the will of the Lord Jesus Christ...by believing in him (O.S. #6-13). Thus, there can be nothing objectionable to read the verse this way...
"As the living Father has sent me to feed on his will, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on my will, shall live because of me."
In the context of chapter 6, the will of the Father and Son is an open invitation to believe in the Messiah (6:29). When that occurs, it's guaranteed the Triune God will enter in to metaphorically eat with us, not that we should literally eat Jesus (John 14:23; Rev 3:20).
The church at Rome errs because they zero in on only the latter part of the verse to "feed on me"... ignoring the metaphorical parallel between Father and Son. What they miss is that just as he was sent by, trusted in and took command from the Father by metaphorically feeding on him, so too must we metaphorically feed on Jesus, whom we are sent by, trust in and take command from on the road to eternal life.
2) M-16: Malakye says, "It was not the eating of the Lamb that saved them, but the blood of the Lamb smeared on their doorposts".
[But Scripture says] if you didn't eat the flesh, you were cut off (Exodus 12:8, Numbers 9:13).
RESPONSE: My opponent is demanding far too strict, one-to-one correlations between O.T. "rehearsals" and the N.T. "opening night" Broadway show. The Bible doesn't require this, so my original statement, stands. Protestants do indeed "eat" the Lamb, only we feed upon him by faith, as just explained in paragraph 1.
"Let us keep the feast with the [metaphorical] unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" (1 Cor 5:8).
Do Catholics keep this metaphorical feast of unleavened bread? No they don't!
3) M-16: "They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs..."
RESPONSE: Again you imply there must be an exact, one-to-one connection with the "flesh-filled" unleavened Eucharist.
OK. You want exactitude? Where then are the bitter herbs in your Mass?
Answer? NOWHERE.
Now if the second part of the sentence was meant to remind them of their Egyptian bondage by eating unleavened bread and bitter herbs ...(fulfilled in the N.T. by "doing this in remembrance of me")... then the first part of the sentence is a reminder also...(fulfilled in the N.T. by remembering the Lamb's illustrious life and unspeakable death under the auspices of bread and wine).
4) M-16: Jesus used the term trogo. It...was always used literally. [It] bespeaks of literalness even if we don't technically trogo his body.
RESPONSE: Literally, but not technically??? Here again you add a nuance of meaning to the word "literal" which is linguistically pernicious (Rebuttal-2, #25). What you mean to say is that you literally, though sacramentally, trogo his body. Fine.
I emphatically deny it.
Supposing that a literal trogo (with sacramental reservations!) rolls out the red carpet for Transubstantiation, is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.
Due to the fact that there was NO theological difference in the stylistic variance between sheep and lambs, proves there is no theological difference between "eat" and "chew" (Rebuttal-1, #21).
5) M-16: He did not metaphorically come down. Just as the manna was not metaphor.
RESPONSE: Still yet again, your stubborn insistence that O.T. "sentiment" be fulfilled in N.T. "reality", is not only out of order, but hypocritical as well. For example, you admit that while once there was actual blood shed, today it's dished out in an unbloody manner (Rebuttal-2, #20). May I not then also say that while once they ate an actual lamb, today we need only eat the lamb metaphorically?
Or what about Exodus 12:10 and Numbers 9:12? The Passover was to be eaten AT ONCE. None of it was to be saved for another day. But behold! Rome abandons any inkling of exactitude here by...
A) reserving her communion cracker for another day and another purpose.
B) reserving it for hundreds of years when an allegedly bloody wafer is spotted.
C) reserving it so it may be carried about in parades.
D) reserving it so it may be carried to the sick.
E) reserving it to be displayed in the sanctuary.
F) reserving it to be worshipped as deity in a specified location for Eucharistic adoration
...none of which we were instructed to do (CCC 1378-79). Moreover, the lamb's bones were not to be broken (Numbers 9:12) yet the priest flagrantly breaks this pattern when breaking the bread publicly--- and the laity, orally, thus breaking Christ into many metaphysical pieces. While CCC 1377 claims breaking the bread doesn't divide Christ, we say if Transubstantiation were true, the typology of the passover lamb is indeed broken! The magisterium even breaks N.T. patterns of behavior as well, in that while the apostles consumed the Eucharist during Supper, the catechism requires FASTING before communion (CCC 1387).
6) M-16: [But Brandt Pitre says in his book]...
RESPONSE: Mr. Pitre's arguments are beyond ridiculous and are nothing but desperate attempts to equate something...ANYTHING...from the O.T. with the Eucharist. Solution? Snoop around the Text like Sherlock Holmes trying to find evidence no one in the history of Christianity ever thought of before based on the FLIMSIEST of implications and hope the laity falls for it. So Pitre finds the story where God promises to materialize flesh onto a bunch of bare bones right before the eyes of Ezekiel and turn them back into men. This logic-stretching hypothesis is supposed to convince us that the Spirit causes flesh to appear "on the bones" of the Eucharist!
NO. The Ezekiel passage is more suited to a sermon on the resurrection than it is for the Eucharist, let's be honest.
7) M-16: [Pitre says] Ezekiel speaks five times of the "spirit" giving the dead the power to "live".
RESPONSE: Yes. But Pitre runs into a brick wall by wanting to have it both ways! (So what else is new?). What I mean is, he agrees with Romans 8:11 that since "the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit that dwells in you." But on the other hand, the Pope forces him to take the polar opposite position, saying, "in the Eucharist, we receive the pledge of our bodily resurrection at the end of the world" (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 18). Thus, it is not both/and, but EITHER/OR. It is either the Holy Spirit who is the "pledge of our inheritance" which assures our resurrection (Eph 1:14), or it is the metaphysical body parts of Christ Jesus contained in the Eucharist that assures our resurrection.
We say to Mr. Pitre and all Catholics: Look out into the field. There is a rooster and a caterpillar. Yes, Almighty power could turn the rooster into a caterpillar and vice versa, just as John the Baptist said God could turn these rocks into the sons of Abraham (Matt 3:9). However, to make the first thing (the rooster) become a second thing (a caterpillar) which hides under the appearance of the first thing (the rooster) is something Almighty power could NOT do, since the caterpillar could not become a butterfly under the appearance of a rooster! To suppose then, that God could turn the rooster into a caterpillar... under the appearance of a rooster, are the ravings of a maniac. Hence, for similar "mechanical" reasons as with the rooster example, neither is the bread turned into the body of Christ... under the form of bread. That is, "mechanically" speaking, while his divine nature, via the Spirit, is indeed omnipresent, his human nature is not. Jesus is a glorified man right now (1 Tim 2:5; Colossians 2:9). Therefore, it is out of order to believe that he is comprehensively, ontologically, anthropologically and geometrically located in many places contemporaneously in the Eucharist.
8) M-16: [Being cut off] exactly matches Jesus' words in 6:54 where only those who eat this meal will inherit eternal life.
RESPONSE: No. As just mentioned, it is the permanent, indwelling Spirit, and not the evaporating Eucharist that guarantees we will inherit eternal life. Moreover, since modern Catholicism is always opening the salvific door a little wider for those outside the church who utterly reject their Eucharist, John 6:54 does not... "exactly match"...Catholic belief and practice. The Pope just recently told a little boy that his now dead, atheist father is in heaven, not because he ate the Eucharist, but because he was baptized! You can watch that miserable 5 minutes on youtube.
9) M-16: Paul speaks about the Eucharistic sacrifice..."The cup of blessing which we bless [and the bread which we break] is it not a participation in the blood of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16).
RESPONSE: This verse no more speaks of a eucharist sacrifice than I am the king of Egypt. "Participation" simply does not equate to Transubstantiation. Ask any Bible scholar.
10) M-16: Malakye [charges] the Church as using an unbeliever, Aristotle, as the basis for transubstantiation, [but] Paul quoted unsaved poets (Acts 17:28).
RESPONSE: My point is that Transubstantiation is grounded in the acrobatics of Aquinas, courtesy of Aristotelian philosophy, rather than on biblical precedent (CCC 1381).
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit", applies here (Col 2:8)
11) M-16: Nicholas Wiseman notes there are 40 words in Aramaic that mean 'signify' that Jesus could have used [but didn't].
RESPONSE: This complaint demands that God is obligated to spell out everything to the entire satisfaction of all mankind! Jesus knew very well that his cannibalistic words were going to split Christendom straight down the middle (CCC 1336) so any apologetic which supposes God could have, would have and should have done something to make matters crystal clear, ignores the right of Divine Providence to "take away the sight of those who claim they can see" (John 9:39-41). Creation displays, not 40, but millions of reasons that there is an Intelligent Designer; nevertheless, he's chosen not to use any ONE of them, preferring instead to cause "strong delusion" upon many, to embrace the lie that the "god of chance" was responsible for creating the universe (2 Thess 2:11-12).
12) M-16: God said, "Let there be light".
RESPONSE: Indeed, from Genesis to Revelation, the Lord constantly appeals to our senses to vividly depict his power, "that you may marvel" (John 5:20). Virtually every miracle was meant to astonish our senses and display his glory. Yet the "miracle" of Transubstantiation is not an appeal to the senses, nor to any principle in human nature; but is an appeal to fanaticism, violating common sense and sound reason. There exists no pattern in Scripture of the supernatural taking place, where all the evidence indicated nothing supernatural had taken place. The record even shows that when God turned the rivers into blood, it took on the appearance of blood and was obvious for all to see! (Psalm 78:44). Yet the Pope wants us to believe in the optical illusion that the blood of Jesus takes on the appearance of bread and wine for no one to see (CCC 1381). The witness of the apostles, however, told us of what they, "have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled" (1 John 1:1; cf. John 5:42, 20:27; Acts 1:1-4).
13) M-16: St. John Chrysostom states [that Jesus] drank His own blood.
RESPONSE: Since the Lord adamantly opposes any doctrine that "promotes controversial speculation" (1 Tim 1:3-4), he MUST be opposed to Transubstantiation since it breeds controversy like mold to a wet spot, especially the idea that he ate himself at the Last Supper! But if Transubstantiation had occurred and "I will no longer drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God", that leaves us with the horrific thought that he will drink his own blood throughout eternity. It is sheer nonsense!
14) M-16: Malakye argues against Sungenis, who says 'Exact Replica'. I don't use that terminology, is not in the Catechism, and will not defend it, Rule #3.
RESPONSE: I would counter that "replicating terminology" is synonymous with how the catechism describes it. We read that Christ's sacrifice is continuously "reproduced" in the Eucharist (1372). Considering that you believe that what happened on the cross is the "same thing" which manifests itself in the Eucharist (1367) then the "reproduction of an exact replica" is a phrase which accurately represents what occurs in the Mass.
15) M-16: Malakye references Hebrews 9:16-17, which says a Testament is in force only after one dies, so [because Christ had not yet died, his "new testament" in Transubstantiation did not occur]. He misses the argument in Hebrews 9 [indicating there are] "better sacrifices". These better sacrifices, plural... reflects the [singular] once and for all sacrifice [taking place in Mass 24/7].
RESPONSE: I repeat: Jesus was alive at the Last Supper and live sacrifices were forbidden! (Leviticus 17:11-14).
Second, God's occasional use of the plural to describe the singular, does not nullify the forbidden protocol of Leviticus 17. These are figures of speech known as the "plural of majesty" ("Believer’s Bible Commentary" by McDonald). For example, "the sacrifices of God [plural] are a broken spirit [singular]"... (Psalm 51:17). "Ye are my witnesses [plural], my servant [singular] whom I have chosen" (Isaiah 43:10). Third, most agree (including M-16) the single event at Calvary's cross is expressed in the plural ("better sacrifices") to indicate its matchless excellency over and against the many Levitical sacrifices of old. But M-16 wishes to have it both ways again; namely, in going one step further to mind-read the author by telling us WHAT IS NOT IN THE TEXT. He says that "better sacrifices" (plural) refers to the (singular) once and for all sacrifice going on in the Mass day and night until kingdom come.
Thank you, but no.
16) M-16: These better sacrifices, plural, [are] the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11 [i.e., the continuously reproduced, pure offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice].
RESPONSE: The "pure offering" does not necessarily refer to a sacrifice for sin, yet the magisterium just assumes it (CCC 1350, 2643). Elsewhere, the word translated "offering" refers to the grain offering, which was a voluntary act of gratitude, not an atoning sacrifice for sin (Leviticus 6:14-23). Next, when referring to the Eucharist in conjunction with the Malachi prophecy, Trent claimed that it will always be acceptable to God regardless of any malice of the one offering it (Session 22, ch. 1; CCC 1128). On the other hand, Proverbs 15:8 debunks that idea: "the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord". We will believe God, thank you, and not the RCC.
Next, Malachi cannot possibly be referring to the Eucharist because at both the beginning and end of the prophecy, it says certain things will happen in an era when, "my name will be great among the nations". Yet everyone knows that the name of the Lord Jesus Christ has been ridiculed and scorned 24/7 ever since he was born. Students of the Bible know this verse is pointing prophetically to the time following the second coming when he will set up his kingdom where indeed, his name will be great among the nations.
17) M-16: Malakye says, "I utterly disavow the idea of Jesus making a transition in the midst of his failing Algebra students (unbelievers)".
[But] in verse 51, he argues that [the flesh Christ gives for the life of the world refers to] going to the cross. That is fine, but shows [the Lord] is not speaking of metaphor [because he has now transitioned from metaphorical bread to literal flesh, something Malakye said Christ would not do].
RESPONSE: Actually, the RCC doesn't teach that it's just "FINE" (as you say) to believe vs. 51 refers to Jesus giving his flesh on Calvary (my position). After claiming once again to be guided by the Spirit, Trent quotes vs. 51 in conjunction with their proof of EATING Christ's flesh--- not his going to the cross ("On Communion" chapter 1), so it could not possibly be just "FINE" with them.
I now confront your complaint which supposes that my argument is self-refuting because I believe vs. 51 refers to his literal flesh given on Calvary. I answer that I am NOT saying that Jesus can't take the liberty to transition from metaphorical to literal if he so chooses. In fact, he DOES make this transition in vs. 51 (which I'll get to shortly) but it does nothing to hurt my thesis, which you have misrepresented. What I am rejecting is the idea that Jesus would either introduce or transition into the context of chapter 6, the foreign concept of TRANSUBSTANTIATION. Why? Because " to whom much is given, much is required " (Luke 12:48). Many in attendance clearly had NOT been ..."given much"...when it came to faith in the Messiah, so to transition to a course on Transubstantiation, without faith, (even if it were true) would be unthinkable for the Teacher and incomprehensible to his students.
In fact, it is M-16's argument which trips over the rope. In his O.S. #7, he tells us that reference to the "Bread of Life" before vs. 48 is metaphorical, but after 48, it's literal. We deny. Jesus as the B.O.L., is STILL metaphorical after 48 because in 51 he now identifies himself to be "the LIVING bread", reminiscent of "The Fountain of Living Waters" (Jer 2:3; John 4:10). By virtue of the fact that living water and living bread do not refer to physical realities, but to spiritual truth, there can be no doubt that reference to the B.O.L. is likewise metaphorical after vs. 48, contrary to M-16. His position stumbles, not mine.
Following then, the metaphorical use of "living" bread in 51, Jesus transitions and identifies the bread metaphor (as he identifies others, e.g., Matt 13:37-39) as being his LITERAL flesh, given on CALVARY -- and not for public consumption. Yes, this bread is eaten literally, but its significance is to be "digested" metaphorically. "Eating" is demonstrated to be an act of the intellect (Jer 15:16, Matt 4:4). Witness the woman in Matt 15 seeking help. He responded that it would not be good to take the children's---(Israel's) bread and throw it to the dogs first. Her response was exquisite: "Truth, Lord; but even the little dogs [such as myself] eat the crumbs which fall from the master's table." This is a striking example where Jesus endorses the act of believing as being synonymous with eating the words from the master's table, which of course, are an act of the intellect. Consequently, if Jesus commended the woman by recognizing the symbolic nature of his words as bread dropping from the Master's table, then we ought to follow that same symbolic line of thought to the bread at the Master's table at the Last Supper.
18) M-16: [But] the tabernacle actually held the bread of presence (Exodus 25:30).
Response: Catholics see the word "bread" and "presence" and begin to hyperventilate, thinking they've discovered a connection with the Eucharist. On the contrary, this verse merely refers to the showbread reserved in the tabernacle for the exclusive use of the priests. "And thou shalt set upon the table showbread before me always".
Did you get that? The bread of the presence had nothing to do with God's presence IN the bread, but it DID have to do with the bread being in the presence of God himself.
Now wasn't that easy? Another Catholic apologetic bites the dust.
19) M-16: Cannibalism is eating a dead body with flesh and bones. Jesus is not dead. [We eat] a glorified, risen Christ, no arms/toes [in the form of bread and wine].
RESPONSE: To set the record straight, catechism "baseball editors" try to hit a home run by covering first, second and third base, but strike out quite badly by asserting that the life, death AND resurrected Christ are all (!) made present and "actualized" in the Eucharist (CCC 1104, 1409). Where does Scripture, the umpire, ever say Jesus pitched the idea that a triple play would be scored in bread and wine? Answer? NOWHERE. CCC 1409 confirms my previous analysis that Catholics can't be sure if they're eating a pre or post resurrected Christ (Rebuttal-1, #13). Solution? Have it both ways!
NO. Catholics may NOT have it both ways (unless they wish to be admitted to an insane asylum). Either way,
"Like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be recovered" (2 Sam 14:14), neither can the blood of Christ be recovered for us to drink.
To vindicate my point about cannibalism, let's concentrate on the death aspect of the "victim", as he is called in 1367. We are told in 1366 that the Eucharist "makes present the sacrifice of the cross"
(ALERT: that was a DEATH scene). Again, "in the Eucharist, Christ gives us the very body which he gave up on the cross [and] the very blood which he poured out" (CCC 1353, 1365, 1367-8). Now, Scripture unambiguously states Jesus was NOT glorified prior to his resurrection (John 7:39). This means that, by official RC definition, what is being "made present" is a non-glorified, DEAD BODY, and non-glorified, POURED OUT BLOOD, which you claim to eat and drink. It is therefore, cannibalism, whether you like it or not, regardless of it's metaphysical nature.
20) M-16: If the Eucharist was just a symbol, there is no way possible that one can be guilty of the body and blood.
RESPONSE: Oh yes it is possible! The Corinthian's callous disregard to what the elements represented became an abuse offered to a sign. Such abuse reaches to that person which the sign signifies; thus, the Corinthian's sacrilege of the Supper amounted to burning Christ in effigy. They were "insulting the Spirit of grace" (Heb 10:29) which whitewashed our crimson-stained redemption, resulting in some of their deaths (1 Cor 11:30). Consequently, the "Real Presence" of Christ is simply not required to be in the emblems of bread and wine for one to be "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord".
21) M-16: The reality of his body and blood [is established] by [their not] recognizing that reality, verse 29.
RESPONSE: NO. It wasn't that they were failing to discern Transubstantiation, but failing to honor what the Lord's body represented in the elements; namely, that it was given in order that our sins might be put away! Their cantankerous behavior was effectively treating the work at Calvary in contempt. Instead of being cleansed by his blood, they end up being "guilty of his blood"; in the same sense as expressed in Hebrews 6:6; "crucifying to themselves the Son of God afresh." In other words, if they continue to deliberately undermine the cross-work of Christ, they are no different than those who first crucified him; seeing his death as not for the sins of others, but as one who deserved execution.
22) M-16: Paul reiterates that [one may partake of either/or in an unworthy manner]
RESPONSE: Paul does NOT..."reiterate"...anything. The word "OR" occurs only once in the translation. The reason he MAY have used that word contra to the KJV, doesn't have anything to do with the absurd idea that he thought every drop and particle of the Eucharist contained a fully-formed Christ--- so taking either one was fine with him. His use of "OR drink this cup" is not a denial to partake of BOTH. What he meant is defined right there in that very sentence; namely, that it was possible to partake of either the bread or of the cup in the wrong state of mind. Simple.
Paul's figurative interpretation of the elements begins by his comparing the "cup of the Lord" with the "cup of demons" (1 Cor 10:21). Since demons lack blood, both cups must be symbolic. He then goes on reciting a triple repetition of the phrases, "eat the bread" and "drink the cup," instead of "eat the body" and "drink the blood" (1 Cor 11:27-29). Obviously, he was a stranger to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, as was Jesus who also referred to the elements by their proper names after the supposed consecration (Matt 26:29). In addition, Paul makes no mention of any priest officiating (which there would have to be for Transubstantiation to occur), yet isn't it amazing that the RCC requires every priest at Mass to consume both bread and wine, but for the laity, it isn't necessary!
23) The Council of Trent did not even use the "OR" argument in their defense of communion under only one kind. Nevertheless, we must of course expect SOME sleazy excuse to justify their disobedience and as usual, they do not disappoint. They quote chapter 6: "If anyone eats this bread, he will live forever" (Session 21). They assume (quite comically) that because the Lord only mentions bread in this verse, but no "liquid", then (whala!) he would not care if we take only bread.
NO!
Need it be said that it's as common as the noonday sun to speak on any given topic, while taking for granted things unmentioned? For instance, everyone agrees that just because drinking is not mentioned in, "Give us this day our daily bread", that this is a prayer that we die of thirst. Consequently, Trent's disgraceful attempt at logic is not indicative of infallibility at all, but rather, "Scripture twisting" at its worst (2 Peter 3:16).
Communion under only one kind amounts to nothing less than a mutilation of the Lord's Supper, under the pretense that since the "whole Christ" is contained in every last drop and crumb, there's no need to take both (CCC 1377).
Question: Does every drop of sea water contain the whole ocean? Does every grain of sand contain the whole Earth?
Answer? No.
Then neither is the whole Christ contained in every drop and crumb of the Eucharist.
In Galatians 3:15, Paul essentially says that in human affairs, when a covenant is signed and sealed, no one would dare think of taking away or adding to it. Obviously then, he would consider it a crime of sacrilege to take away from Christ's "last will and testament" at the Last Supper.
CONCLUSION
24) Jesus wants us to, "destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God" (2 Cor 10:5). He hates false doctrine (Rev 2:15) and congratulates the ones who investigate those claiming to be his followers, "but are not, and has found them to be liars" (Rev 2:2).
Circa 1550, Martin Chemnitz gave over 1,000 reasons why the Council of Trent was nothing BUT a bunch of liars,
in his, "Examination of the Council of Trent". I built my argument on the foundation of only ONE lie, the single use of the word "truly" which Trent claims Christ "SAID" (!) to convince us that Transubstantiation had occurred. Since that is categorically false, then everything Catholicism teaches MUST be rejected (Deuteronomy 18:22; Jeremiah 14:14, 23:16-21, 23:30-40). Trent's one word, "infallible error" has very much the same effect as when a person's image is "photoshopped" into a picture; it looks almost plausible if you don't pay attention, but then you realize it doesn't really fit.
Space limitations prohibit me from getting to every point made by M-16, but like all the rest of his arguments, they simply cannot be the "mind of Christ" (1 Cor 2:16) due to the fact that Catholicism is now exposed as a non-prophet organization.
At the end of the day, Transubstantiation is an idolatrous, "unfruitful work of darkness" (Eph 5:11) that can only be classified as the misbegotten enemy of God's only begotten Son . Because it was strictly forbidden to worship any object, even those meant to represent him (Exodus 20:4-5), we can be sure that God will never contradict himself by entering into material objects such as bread and wine and then order people to worship them. Thus, Transubstantiation is irrational on practically every level. It is logically, soteriologically, physiologically and philosophically bankrupt. It is also exegetically, scientifically, morally, and forensically bankrupt. Finally, it is also linguistically, empirically, ontologically and most of all, biblically bankrupt! Word total: 5,000