[tomdstone]

Re: Catholics teach Jesus is impotent!

I can see no answer to any of the questions.

That is because you are blind and it is difficult to make a blind man see.
“Bread” that is totally gluten free is not bread, but is a cake because it uses chemical leavening within a batter system and a combination of gums, starches and proteins to trap the gas, and expand with the dough during proofing and baking. This is well known and anyone can check it with an expert such as for example, Lin Carson,PhD. in Grain Science, Bread geek and Founder of BAKERpedia.
Bread certified as gluten free by the FDA, in many cases contains an infinitesimal amount of gluten, so even though the FDA certifies it as gluten free, it could be used for Communion, provided it contained an infinitesimal amount of gluten and therefore could be classified as bread.
The bible says that Jesus used bread at the Last Supper. He did not use cake. So you apparently want to have Communion using something other than what Jesus used at the Last Supper. Catholics, OTOH, follow what Our Divine Savior, Jesus did at the Last Supper.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Catholics teach Jesus is impotent!

That is because you are blind and it is difficult to make a blind man see.

An ad hominem fallacy. Retorting to fallacies usually means that there are no more good arguments left.

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

a combination of gums, starches and proteins to trap the gas, and expand with the dough during proofing and baking. This is well known and anyone can check it with an expert such as for example, Lin Carson,PhD. in Grain Science, Bread geek and Founder of BAKERpedia.

Do you really think that a single PhD in a discussion board is evidence? Are you familiar with confirmation bias? Only searching for data that support you.

So, for Catholics this is bread:



And this is not bread.

The bible says that Jesus used bread at the Last Supper. He did not use cake. So you apparently want to have Communion using something other than what Jesus used at the Last Supper. Catholics, OTOH, follow what Our Divine Savior, Jesus did at the Last Supper.

"So you apparently..." is a common way of starting a straw man fallacy, of pretending to make a quote but actually presenting a twisted form of an argument that is easier to attack. We don't do communion. In our Statement of Faith we declare: "The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His Second Coming. In the Lord’s Supper, the wine remains wine, and the bread remains bread."

Did you notice that you still haven't actually answered the questions nor presented any points to dismiss those Biblical verses that oppose the Catholic transubstantiation myth.

Matthew 22:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Yours in Christ,


Elmer

[tomdstone]

Re: Catholics teach Jesus is impotent!

An ad hominem fallacy. Retorting to fallacies usually means that there are no more good arguments left.

Do you really think that a single PhD in a discussion board is evidence? Are you familiar with confirmation bias? Only searching for data that support you.

So, for Catholics this is bread:



And this is not bread.




"So you apparently..." is a common way of starting a straw man fallacy, of pretending to make a quote but actually presenting a twisted form of an argument that is easier to attack. We don't do communion. In our Statement of Faith we declare: "The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His Second Coming. In the Lord’s Supper, the wine remains wine, and the bread remains bread."

Did you notice that you still haven't actually answered the questions nor presented any points to dismiss those Biblical verses that oppose the Catholic transubstantiation myth.

Matthew 22:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Yours in Christ,


Elmer

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?

[Elmer G. White]

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?

^^^ another ad hominem^^^
^^^and an appeal to authority^^^
Both are fallacies. My authority is Jesus Christ.

Matthew 22:37
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

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). Opinions are not research results. Carefully scrutinized experiments are. They often mention buckwheat (non-gluten) products as bread.

Influence of levan-producing acetic acid bacteria on buckwheat-sourdough breads

... While levan-producing acetic acid bacteria are a promising alternative for the development of clean-label gluten-free breads without the need of additives, an appropriate balance between acidification and levan production (amount and structure) must be reached.

In Faith® one source, the Bible is enough. The question of Jesus not being able to reside in gluten-free bread is a question of Christian faith™. The Bible suffices. Psalms 139:8 tells us that God can be anywhere. In secular science, opinions or authorities do not actually matter. The results matter. They have to be repeated and scrutinized by peers. A vocabulary choice by a single scholar does not make bread cake. With Faith™ you should choose only one source, God's Revelation. With science you should look at all available material, also the ones that oppose you. You fail on both accounts. Elsewhere, you've admitted the sources of your claims:

[being right because] Because my opinions are correct, and your interpretation of what are the opinions of God are incorrect and fly in the face of 2000 years of Church teaching.

A perfect example of circular reasoning. That is all.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[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!

[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.

[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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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.

[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.