[Basilissa]

Re: Catholics teach Jesus is impotent!

there is a difference between cake and bread and that is what you fail to see.

From the dictionary:

bread: a usually baked and leavened food made of a mixture whose basic constituent is flour or meal
Source

I don't see here anything about gluten, do you?

cake
a : a breadlike food made from a dough or batter that is usually fried or baked in small flat shapes and is often unleavened
b : a sweet baked food made from a dough or thick batter usually containing flour and sugar and often shortening, eggs, and a raising agent (such as baking powder)
c : a flattened usually round mass of food that is baked or fried: a fish cake
Source

It's a breadlike substance which main ingredient is flour. Again, nothing about gluten. It looks like according to this definition, Indian bread falls under the definition of cake, not bread. I hope this helps you to understand that the difference between a cake a bread is rather murky and definitely not gluten-based.

Also, according to this dictionary definition, Communion wafers definitely fit the definition of a cake (a) rather than bread (small flat shape and unleavened). Why would you agree to such a heresy as a Catholic?!

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Catholics teach Jesus is impotent!

If you check your Japanese Bible, either the Protestant or the Catholic version, it does not matter, you will see how Mark 14:22 or Luke 22:19 is translated. You will see the word:パン
You will not see the word:
ケーキ
Why do you suppose that this is so?
Even lay people, except possibly, for members of your landover church, see a difference between bread and cake.
As I said already, at the Last Supper, Jesus said to do this in remembrance of Me. He did not say to do something else.
This does not mean that Jesus is impotent. And it is certainly a Big Lie to say that Catholics teach such.

This is interesting. I did refer to the common people earlier as an example of the diversity of the definitions for bread. Now you use it in a different manner. You use it as an ad populum to show that "cake" and "bread" are totally different categories. As such, this is (obviously) a fallacy, as the Truth™ does on depend on the number of followers of a claim. It is also (one again) a straw man, as you have not demonstrated that the presence or absence of gluten (down to the last molecule, or do you accept homeopathic gluten?) is the line that laypeople use to differentiate between these two baking products. Did you know that many birthday cakes (a sweet product with decoration) do contain gluten, btw? In fact, a majority of them are wheat-based, so they fall into the bread category if we follow your reasoning (I am consciously using the reductio ad absurdum here, but it does show that gluten content will not help you distinguish between cakes and bread - it is a definition that probably won't coincide with your intuitive classification).

We do know that as totally immersed followers of Jesus we are a minority (which undermines your slight ad hominem even further). We are not interested in the majority opinion but in the Bible. The main issue - why Jesus would glorify only gluten-containing products during an era when millet and buckwheat were cultivated - remains (and how it affects Salvation). It does not disappear by the red herring (unsurprisingly, a fallacy) strategy of discussing vocabulary choices (apart from those in the Bible, where cakes and bread overlap) instead.

2 Timothy 2:23
But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

The complaint about Catholics being mistreated is just an ad misericordiam - the Truth™ does not change even if you feel that you have been mistreated. You can still be wrong.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Re: Catholics teach Jesus is impotent!

Please see above for a Biblical explanation of the overlapping categories of bakery products.

Why do you respect one secular scholar over the Bible? Have you now established that Jesus defined bread from the viewpoint of gluten with suitable documentation? Until you assess these issues your categorization remains an opinion. Why should we accept your definition as relevant for God?

The ad nauseam is starting to live up to its name, isn't it?

Incidentally, how does (from the Catholic viewpoint) failure to consume gluten-containing wafers affect a person's chances for Salvation? How does it compare with other trespasses? Is the the table of devils?

Corinthians 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

If you check your Japanese Bible, either the Protestant or the Catholic version, it does not matter, you will see how Mark 14:22 or Luke 22:19 is translated. You will see the word:パン
You will not see the word:
ケーキ
Why do you suppose that this is so?
Even lay people, except possibly, for members of your landover church, see a difference between bread and cake.
As I said already, at the Last Supper, Jesus said to do this in remembrance of Me. He did not say to do something else.
This does not mean that Jesus is impotent. And it is certainly a Big Lie to say that Catholics teach such.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Catholics teach Jesus is impotent!

... the categories of cake and bread are not separate in the Bible, so why should I separate them.

You're asking us to participate in your categorization that is just a straw man (a fallacy) of the richness of the concept of bread in the Bible. Why should we limit ourselves to your vain details?

Please see above for a Biblical explanation of the overlapping categories of bakery products.

Grain scientists see a difference between cake and bread...there is a difference between cake and bread...

Why do you respect one secular scholar over the Bible? Have you now established that Jesus defined bread from the viewpoint of gluten with suitable documentation? Until you assess these issues your categorization remains an opinion. Why should we accept your definition as relevant for God?

The ad nauseam is starting to live up to its name, isn't it?

Incidentally, how does (from the Catholic viewpoint) failure to consume gluten-containing wafers affect a person's chances for Salvation? How does it compare with other trespasses? Is the the table of devils?

Corinthians 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Didymus Much]

Re: Catholics teach Jesus is impotent!

...Grain scientists see a difference between cake and bread...

Bzzzzt. One "grain scientist" (whatever that is) you found said that.


That does not mean that anyone, let alone everyone in that field, agrees with them.

[tomdstone]

Re: Catholics teach Jesus is impotent!

For, instance, let us look at Matthew 6:11.
我らの日用の糧を今日もあたへ給へ。

糧 Is of special interest. Its main meaning is 'provisions', bread as the metaphor for sustenance.

糧 does mean food. But of course, context is important in translation. The context of this thread is not Matthew 6:11, but the Last Supper. Grain scientists see a difference between cake and bread. I don't believe that anyone would ever say that Matthew 6:11 could be written in Japanese as:
我らの日用の ケーキを今日もあたへ給へ。
Or in Chinese as:
給我們這一天我們日常的蛋糕
I suppose you would say that it was an acceptable translation.
But what I have written is not a good translation of Matt 6:11 because there is a difference between cake and bread and that is what you fail to see. At the Last Supper, Jesus took bread and not cake. You can look it up in the Japanese, Korean, Chinese, or any other translation.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Catholics teach Jesus is impotent!

You have not told us the difference between bread and cake.
Your definition of bread cannot be taken seriously, since during the hot days in Asia, many Asians will eat rice with sweat on their forehead.

Dear, it was not my definition but actually a Biblical definition. Look it up. You're also making a fallacy, the association fallacy that can be described as...

• Premise A is a B
• Premise A is also a C
• Conclusion Therefore, all Bs are Cs

A is bread, B sweat and C rice. This means that the association between bread and sweat and, on the other hand, rice and sweat does not mean that I claimed that rice = bread. Of course, for many people it is. You are probably familiar with the fact that the Message of Jesus is often presented in the form approachable to various cultures. For, instance, let us look at Matthew 6:11.
我らの日用の糧を今日もあたへ給へ。

糧 Is of special interest. Its main meaning is 'provisions', bread as the metaphor for sustenance.

Next fallacy, ex silentio. You're using the absence of material (difference between cake and bread) as evidence for your case. Absence of evidence is bot evidence. In this case, the categories of cake and bread are not separate in the Bible, so why should I separate them. It's all in the context. For instance, an interesting case of baking is in Ezekiel where the categories of cake and bread are interchangable in the following two verses.

Ezekiel 4:12-13
And thou shalt eat it [as] barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.

You're asking us to participate in your categorization that is just a straw man (a fallacy) of the richness of the concept of bread in the Bible. Why should we limit ourselves to your vain details?


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Re: Catholics teach Jesus is impotent!

It is the thing that I eat with sweat on my forehead.

You have not told us the difference between bread and cake.
Your definition of bread cannot be taken seriously, since during the hot days in Asia, many Asians will eat rice with sweat on their forehead.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Catholics teach Jesus is impotent!

Give us your definition of bread and your definition of cake.

It is the thing that I eat with sweat on my forehead. It is the thing that fell from the sky. It is the inadequate sustenance on the physical level but the one thing that nourishes us into immortality on the Spiritual level.

John 6:41
The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven

The Bible defines bread in diverse ways. It can be in many forms, one of which is cake (Exodus 29:23; Judges 7:13). How sad and tragic when someone loses the poetry and grace of this so simple but Spiritually uplifting thing and replaces it with a recipe of molecular gastronomy.

Matthew 15:9
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Don't get me wrong, Mr. Stone. Jesus once refused to turn your kind into a loaf of bread (Luke 4:3) but we shall persist in Him and continue helping you.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Re: Catholics teach Jesus is impotent!

You did, and you were given a response. The response included expert opinions that were different from your opinion indicating that the issue of defining "bread" is not simple.

In discussion you could do well to consider the opposing arguments and either reconsider your position of find more support for your views. Let us see:

You repeat your earlier argument disregarding the opposing views.

You are still answered. The complexities of defining "bread" are explained in more detail. You could take this into consideration and make this thread a real discussion. Let us see:

You only re-repeat your original claim. This is also a fallacy called ad nauseam. It means that one can attempt to make her views accepted simply by repeating them over and over and over. This is, again, a fallacy, as the quality of an argument does not depend on the number of times you repeat it.

To summarize: You choose one of the many definitions of "bread" and dismiss the definitions that do not suit you. You admit that your definition is a modern one. There is also the layman definition of the people who actually eat bread. Their concept of bread is a bakery product that has a certain form (a loaf, for instance), a certain texture and a certain use in French cuisine. That is "bread" for them. Are they wrong, because their form and texture were the result of a chemical reaction with e.g. algae-derived biological products and not of a chemical reaction produced by the interplay of sugars, yeast, and gluten? How come some chemical reactions are suitable dwelling places for Jesus and others are not?

Which definition would Jesus use if He wished to have people remember Him by eating a commemorative supper? One of the sources that you disregard gives us the answer, if it would be science or the definition of those who actually eat the bread.

1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

We have the product that looks like the bread that can be eaten and has the texture and the crunch ready to receive the toppings. Is it not bread because some oppositions of a particular scholar who with profane and vain babblings decides to re-define bread? This is Tomism. It is no surprise that the ad nauseam was your next strategy, as it is the one that the Catholic Church has kept up for centuries to oust the Word of God with Tradition.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

Give us your definition of bread and your definition of cake.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Catholics teach Jesus is impotent!

I have given you expert opinion from a PhD in grain science.

You did, and you were given a response. The response included expert opinions that were different from your opinion indicating that the issue of defining "bread" is not simple.

When it comes to assessing secular science, I usually rely on actual peer-reviewed scientific publications and not on hearsay that one can find on Discussion Boards (such as your link)... In secular science, opinions or authorities do not actually matter. The results matter. They have to be repeated and scrutinized by peers.

In discussion you could do well to consider the opposing arguments and either reconsider your position of find more support for your views. Let us see:

"Bread” that is totally gluten free is not bread, but is a cake because it uses chemical leavening within a batter system.

You repeat your earlier argument disregarding the opposing views.

Are there other characteristics that could determine "bread". The concept of "bread" is not simple. Different people give it different meanings. Thus, your question is also a complex question as it contain the premise that gluten determines the essence of being a bread. That is a fallacy. You're claiming that your definition is the same as the definition of Jesus.

You are still answered. The complexities of defining "bread" are explained in more detail. You could take this into consideration and make this thread a real discussion. Let us see:

the fact that at the present time "Bread” that is totally gluten free is not bread, but is a cake because it uses chemical leavening within a batter system...

You only re-repeat your original claim. This is also a fallacy called ad nauseam. It means that one can attempt to make her views accepted simply by repeating them over and over and over. This is, again, a fallacy, as the quality of an argument does not depend on the number of times you repeat it.

To summarize: You choose one of the many definitions of "bread" and dismiss the definitions that do not suit you. You admit that your definition is a modern one. There is also the layman definition of the people who actually eat bread. Their concept of bread is a bakery product that has a certain form (a loaf, for instance), a certain texture and a certain use in French cuisine. That is "bread" for them. Are they wrong, because their form and texture were the result of a chemical reaction with e.g. algae-derived biological products and not of a chemical reaction produced by the interplay of sugars, yeast, and gluten? How come some chemical reactions are suitable dwelling places for Jesus and others are not?

Which definition would Jesus use if He wished to have people remember Him by eating a commemorative supper? One of the sources that you disregard gives us the answer, if it would be science or the definition of those who actually eat the bread.

1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

We have the product that looks like the bread that can be eaten and has the texture and the crunch ready to receive the toppings. Is it not bread because some oppositions of a particular scholar who with profane and vain babblings decides to re-define bread? This is Thomism. It is no surprise that the ad nauseam was your next strategy, as it is the one that the Catholic Church has kept up for centuries to oust the Word of God with Tradition.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Re: Catholics teach Jesus is impotent!

No, it is not a fallacy based on my credentials. It is a fallacy, because the content of an argument is the thing that determines its value, not the person. Elsewhere you mentioned a postman and implied that we should not judge the post by its carrier but by its content.

Thus, we enter special pleading. When an argument does not please you, you attack the opponent and not the argument. When you wish to defend something of yours, you're ready to introduce the mailman story. This in inconsistent, you make special rules for yourself and different rules for others; and thus you make the fallacy of special pleading. You're also doing cherry picking by choosing one expert vocabulary opinion and ignoring others. It is a fallacy. The appeal to authority is a fallacy because, once again, the content of evidence is crucial, not the person giving it. The last question is a false dilemma. A fallacy. Admit or reject! No other options given: Are there other characteristics that could determine "bread". The concept of "bread" is not simple. Different people give it different meanings. Thus, your question is also a complex question as it contain the premise that gluten determines the essence of being a bread. That is a fallacy. You're claiming that your definition is the same as the definition of Jesus. You cannot know that unless gluten is mentioned in the Bible. Is it?

Romans 10:3
For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

I am not interested in your credentials. Only your arguments and their sources. Based on the assessment so far, these claims are based on self-righteousness. You can prove us wrong as we do consider alternative hypotheses to our favorite ones. You would just have to actually consider and actually assess the points given to you.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

Apparently you reject the fact that at the present time "Bread” that is totally gluten free is not bread, but is a cake because it uses chemical leavening within a batter system.That is your error.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Catholics teach Jesus is impotent!

So, it is a fallacy? So you do have credentials in grain science? What are they? Do you admit or reject the fact that at the present time "Bread” that is totally gluten free is not bread, but is a cake because it uses chemical leavening within a batter system.

No, it is not a fallacy based on my credentials. It is a fallacy, because the content of an argument is the thing that determines its value, not the person. Elsewhere you mentioned a postman and implied that we should not judge the post by its carrier but by its content.

Thus, we enter special pleading. When an argument does not please you, you attack the opponent and not the argument. When you wish to defend something of yours, you're ready to introduce the mailman story. This in inconsistent, you make special rules for yourself and different rules for others; and thus you make the fallacy of special pleading. You're also doing cherry picking by choosing one expert vocabulary opinion and ignoring others. It is a fallacy. The appeal to authority is a fallacy because, once again, the content of evidence is crucial, not the person giving it. The last question is a false dilemma. A fallacy. Admit or reject! No other options given: Are there other characteristics that could determine "bread". The concept of "bread" is not simple. Different people give it different meanings. Thus, your question is also a complex question as it contain the premise that gluten determines the essence of being a bread. That is a fallacy. You're claiming that your definition is the same as the definition of Jesus. You cannot know that unless gluten is mentioned in the Bible. Is it?

Romans 10:3
For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

I am not interested in your credentials. Only your arguments and their sources. Based on the assessment so far, these claims are based on self-righteousness. You can prove us wrong as we do consider alternative hypotheses to our favorite ones. You would just have to actually consider and actually assess the points given to you.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Re: Catholics teach Jesus is impotent!

^^^ another ad hominem^^^
^^^and an appeal to authority^^^
Both are fallacies.

So, it is a fallacy? So you do have credentials in grain science? What are they? Do you admit or reject the fact that at the present time "Bread” that is totally gluten free is not bread, but is a cake because it uses chemical leavening within a batter system.

[Didymus Much]

Re: Catholics teach Jesus is impotent!

I have given you expert opinion from a PhD in grain science. You apparently reject her expert authority. What are your credentials in grain science? How many books and research articles have you written in grain science? How many lectures in grain science have you given?

Hey, Tom, when you've got a moment, could you upload a profile photo? Merriam-Webster needs a new definition for "obtuse". Thanks!