>"the bread and wine are miraculously transmuted into the actual, literal flesh and blood of Christ!"
>"another miracle occurs at the exact same time that enables this divine flesh and blood to retain the appearance, taste, smell, texture, and chemical/molecular composition of bread and wine!"
You have to be a gullible mong to still fall for this shit.
Euphoric.
Not an argument
>not being Lutheran
To be fair, the catholics didn't start this cannibal/vampire myth. Pagans before them did. They just kept it going. "Eat God, Be God".
Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practiced by pagan religions. The noted historian Durant said that belief in transubstantiation as practiced by the priests of the Roman Catholic system is "one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion." The Story Of Civilization, p. 741. The syncretism and mysticism of the Middle East were great factors in influencing the West, particularly Italy. Roman Society From Nero To Marcus Aurelius, Dill. In Egypt priests would consecrate mest cakes which were supposed to be come the flesh of Osiris. Encyclopedia Of Religions, Vol. 2, p. 76. The idea of transubstantiation was also characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes and Haoma drink closely parallel the Catholic Eucharistic rite. Ibid. The idea of eating the flesh of deity was most popular among the people of Mexico and Central America long before they ever heard of Christ; and when Spanish missionaries first landed in those countries "their surprise was heightened, when they witnessed a religious rite which reminded them of communion...an image made of flour...and after consecration by priests, was distributed among the people who ate it...declaring it was the flesh of deity..." Prescott's Mexico, Vol. 3.
>"Eat God, Be God
Eat foot... Be foot?
But Luther believed in transubstantiation.
>hoc est corpus meum
It's a miracle you dolt.
>Lutherans explicitly reject transubstantiation [62] believing that the bread and wine remain fully bread and fully wine while also being truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ.[63][64][65][66] Lutheran churches instead emphasize the sacramental union[67]
>Christ is present substantively, essentially, though not quantitatively, qualitatively,or locally
You are correct, I must have misremembered that point.
Magic mushrooms were also considered to be the "flesh" of the gods in some European pagan cultures and it is known they were consumed during certain religious ceremonies
>Lutherans explicitly reject transubstantiation [62] believing that the bread and wine remain fully bread and fully wine while also being truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
i never understood how this is different than transubstantiation. most explanations for it that i've heard say that the bread and wine gain the "essence" of christ, which seems to be a different wording of the lutheran explanation.
In other words, convoluted trash that tries to masquerade as magical, mystic bullshit.
transubstantiation fully transforms the bread and wine. in consubstantiation its both bread and wine and the body of Christ
>we know what jesus tasted like
>also I should kill any german and polish migrants because they killed englishmen in ww1
The scene pictured never happened. He didn't nail his theses.
not an argument
It's more based on the Aristotelean concept of substance that was in the vogue when theology was formulated. It does make sense in that context.
>Nobody in the thread understands drama or dramatization
I mean, what do you fedoras do when you go to the movies? Sit and scream in front of everybody that the actors are just playing and that it isn't real?
That's because papists worship the infallible pedophile Argentine communist
yes he did
Not an explanation.
It's a known historical myth. A moment people often picture incorrectly.
Melancthon said he did
Well, frankly, because drama isn't the thesis. It's one thing if the theology is "the aesthetic evokation of the sense of Christ in the ritual items and participants" similar to Abhinavagupta's rasas, but the doctrine of transusbtantiation entails:
>The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ.
>yfw you were given a sip of wine every sunday ever since you were a toddler
The fact that they believe it is literally true, doesn't change it from being a drama. It's just a lived drama.
The actors in a movie have to make it seem like the movie's universe, setting and character is real too, else they are bad actors and nobody will take it seriously.
>doesn't change it from being a drama
I don't inherently disagree, I just think it's goofy to assert that fedorafags just don't understand drama when they're confronting literal transubstantiation as an article of faith.
>I do think it's a valid argument against them in some cases, though: "I'm a grown up who don't need no fairy tales"...Really? Then go grab all your vidya, all your fiction, all your capeshit, all your hipster concept albums, make a bonfire and burn 'em. Just not in *this* case.
The point is that people love stories and narratives, and they will simply exchange one for the other if they lose one they had.
Take the Marvel Universe Movies right now, it's like pure mythology costing hundreds of millions of dollars, and people love it and cherish it.
And yet they sneer at a narrative that is thousands of years old.
>people live through and express their selfhood via stories and narratives
ftfy
All we have is narrative.
For some it's a cold sad secular narrative bleached of all semiotics and devoid of any tale marginally more stirring than BvS.
read the bible
I already do, fairly regularly. Most recently with interlinear Greek.
Any advice on what to thumb through next between Tantras, the Pali canon, and Schiller's aesthetics and the Dead Sea corpus?
Are you retarded?
You do realize the very marked difference between fictional narratives (you used Marvel movies as your example) and the Christian religion are that, for starters, nobody actually believes fictions are true, and that nobody actually believes them to be the one and only way to some salvific path.
Man, you fucks are idiots.
>nobody actually believes fictions are true
Depends wholly on what you mean by "believe".
I mean, I know people who cry when they watch movies. Aren't emotions real?
Not the guy you were talking to but lol, you sound dumb af.
Moreover, the type to make an argument that the Christist religion is 110% historically accurate are usually the type to posit other faiths are folklore at best or demons at worst.
Literally zero arguments.
Stop making a fool out of yourself.
Hurr durr people cry at movies. Dey fink the peoplez trapped inside the magic screen are hurting!
You're really illustrating your double-digit IQ at this point.
>"people root for fictional characters"
>"therefore, people think these fictional characters are real and can be asked for help!"
Holy shit, you're such a God-damned idiot.
>inb4 not an argument
Neither is your weird 'people like movies/books' line-of-thought, faggot.
The point is that to the extent that the fictional space is depicted as real and vivid, it triggers people's emotions.
Do you think people come to religion by being nihilisticly rational?
No, they don't. They view the narratives as a drama influencing their life. And this is irrational and emotional.
Schrodingers hostia. Bread when observed, Jesus when unobserved
Lutherans
>yea, we know it's symbolic. It's a metaphor, an incredibly important metaphor and that's ok.
Meanwhile, Catholics ITT are rolling around on the floor trying to explain how their explicitly literal belief is not seriously that, despite it having to be exactly that.