[tomdstone]

Originally Posted by Elmer G. White

Me too.




.

[Elmer G. White]

Originally Posted by tomdstone

• Jesus can appear in a date. But did He choose to do so?
• Why did He choose to use Bread at the Last Supper and not dates?

Last try.

Why is only a certain kind of bread suitable? You would probably be able to justify your position about dates and bread with the Bible (that is obviously an ad ridiculum and thus fallacious argumentation, and you would still have to assess the verses that oppose transubstantiation). If gluten is necessary, you must justify this and not make a smokescreen (a fallacy) escape. I.e., this is a positive claim by Catholics: "You need gluten". Why? If it is what Jesus wants, then you must have a document of His Will.

How do you know that, e.g., other ancient crops that can be processed into bread (such as buckwheat that has been cultivated in China and in the Middle East since 6000 BC; Ohnishi O .1998. Search for the wild ancestor of buckwheat III. The wild ancestor of cultivated common buckwheat, and of tatary buckwheat. Economic Botany. 52: 123–133), but contain no gluten are not suitable? The burden of proof is on your side regarding this individual single item. Why is wheat OK and gluten-free bread not? Because this is the actual claim that the Catholic Church does. You not only have to answer that Jesus "does not wish to appear in gluten-free products" (the negative) but also the positive claim ("He only appears in wheat") by providing documentation and not only opinions. Regarding your questions, you are welcome to start your own sites and threads questioning our beliefs. However, you're making a straw man fallacy by posing questions that do not contain any details of our doctrine.

Evasive posts by answering legitimate questions with ad ridiculum may be fun but only add to your ballast of fallacious argumentation.

Proverbs 9:6
Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Originally Posted by Elmer G. White

Why is only a certain kind of bread suitable? You would probably be able to justify your position about dates and bread with the Bible (that is obviously an ad ridiculum and thus fallacious argumentation, and you would still have to assess the verses that oppose transubstantiation). If gluten is necessary, you must justify this and not make a smokescreen (a fallacy) escape. I.e., this is a positive claim by Catholics: "You need gluten". Why? If it is what Jesus wants, then you must have a document of His Will.

How do you know that, e.g., other ancient crops that can be processed into bread (such as buckwheat that has been cultivated in China and in the Middle East since 6000 BC; Ohnishi O .1998. Search for the wild ancestor of buckwheat III. The wild ancestor of cultivated common buckwheat, and of tatary buckwheat. Economic Botany. 52: 123–133), but contain no gluten are not suitable? The burden of proof is on your side regarding this individual single item. Why is wheat OK and gluten-free bread not? Because this is the actual claim that the Catholic Church does. You not only have to answer that Jesus "does not wish to appear in gluten-free products" (the negative) but also the positive claim ("He only appears in wheat") by providing documentation and not only opinions. Regarding your questions, you are welcome to start your own sites and threads questioning our beliefs. However, you're making a straw man fallacy by posing questions that do not contain any details of our doctrine.

Evasive posts by answering legitimate questions with ad ridiculum may be fun but only add to your ballast of fallacious argumentation.

Proverbs 9:6
Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

The idea is that it is better to use what Our Divine Lord used. And to do as Our Divine Lord did.

[Elmer G. White]

Originally Posted by tomdstone

The idea is that it is better to use what Our Divine Lord used. And to do as Our Divine Lord did.

What a grandiose idea. Can we apply this to other areas of Worship, too? Let us start with apparel (Zephaniah 1:8).


Then we can go on to gathering Earthly riches (Matthew 6:19).



Do as our Lord did and discard all that or leave the community that fails to do so. Of course you will do as our Lord did! So I expect to see you soon taking a Fiat 500 to Ye Olde Vatican Gift Shoppe wielding a scourge of small cords, turn over some tables and saying some well-formulated arguments to the moneychangers.

As for the base grain utilized for wafer production, your reply does (as expected) not assess the actual question of giving us some certainty that Jesus shared bread made exclusively from wheat and not buckwheat or something else and if it was wheat, which variety is the one that carries His "essence"?

There are two wild einkorns, Triticum boeoticum Boiss. and T. urartu Thum. ex Gandil., and one domesticated einkorn, T. monococcum L. Numerous wild emmer wheats are known, the one that is most important for our purposes is T. dicoccum (Schrank) Schübl. Durum wheat, a kind of domesticated emmer, has the remarkably appropriate Latin name of T. durum L. Likewise, spelt is T. spelta Desf. Lastly, bread wheat is T. aestivum L.

Why do your superiors care? Perhaps because they have neglected some words of Jesus. Perhaps they should do as their Divine Lord did?

Matthew 6:25
Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

Matthew 15:11
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Romans 14:14
I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Instead, you take one verse to rule you all, one detached verse to find all the innocents, one verse disregarding everything we've tried to tell you to bring them all in and in the darkness bind them. Jesus must be weeping.

Fiat lux.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Originally Posted by Elmer G. White

What a grandiose idea. Can we apply this to other areas of Worship, too? Let us start with apparel (Zephaniah 1:8).


Then we can go on to gathering Earthly riches (Matthew 6:19).



Do as our Lord did and discard all that or leave the community that fails to do so. Of course you will do as our Lord did! So I expect to see you soon taking a Fiat 500 to Ye Olde Vatican Gift Shoppe wielding a scourge of small cords, turn over some tables and saying some well-formulated arguments to the moneychangers.

As for the base grain utilized for wafer production, your reply does (as expected) not assess the actual question of giving us some certainty that Jesus shared bread made exclusively from wheat and not buckwheat or something else and if it was wheat, which variety is the one that carries His "essence"?
Why do your superiors care? Perhaps because they have neglected some words of Jesus. Perhaps they should do as their Divine Lord did?

Matthew 6:25
Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

Matthew 15:11
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Romans 14:14
I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Instead, you take one verse to rule you all, one detached verse to find all the innocents, one verse disregarding everything we've tried to tell you to bring them all in and in the darkness bind them. Jesus must be weeping.

Fiat lux.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

LOLChange of subject?

[Elmer G. White]

Originally Posted by Mary Etheldreda explaining the issue

True Christians™ know the difference. True Christians™ know Jesus is omnipotent. Catholics don't really get it. They think He can only do so much.

One thing they believe He can do - become bread and wine every time one of their priests babbles a bit in Latin.
One thing they believe He cannot do - keep the gluten out of the bread for Catholics with Celiac Disease, or miraculously prevent their bodies from reacting to the gluten.

This set the stage. Is it at all reasonable to claim that Jesus would not be present in products without gluten if He is at the same time omnipotent?

Originally Posted by Elmer G. White trying to unravel if there are data about the actual content of the dough of the bread of the Last Supper

Last try.

Why is only a certain kind of bread suitable?
How do you know that, e.g., other ancient crops that can be processed into bread (such as buckwheat that has been cultivated in China and in the Middle East since 6000 BC; Ohnishi O .1998. Search for the wild ancestor of buckwheat III. The wild ancestor of cultivated common buckwheat, and of tatary buckwheat. Economic Botany. 52: 123–133), but contain no gluten are not suitable?

Evasive posts by answering legitimate questions with ad ridiculum may be fun but only add to your ballast of fallacious argumentation.

Firmly within the context of the well-formulated opening post. How do the Catholics know which grain or a mixture of them the home baker of Jesus used!

Originally Posted by tomdstone being most evasive as usual despite the best efforts of Elmer G. White

The idea is that it is better to use what Our Divine Lord used. And to do as Our Divine Lord did.

Implying i) that we should eat the same stuff that Jesus did (although we are not told if it was wheat) and ii) that we should do as our Lord tells us to do. OK. This can be answered albeit it is quite far from the focus of the discussion.

Originally Posted by Elmer G. White starting with the issue of doing things in the Way Jesus wants us to do and then returning to the actual focus

Can we apply this to other areas of Worship, too? Let us start with apparel (Zephaniah 1:8).

Then we can go on to gathering Earthly riches (Matthew 6:19).
---
As for the base grain utilized for wafer production, your reply does (as expected) not assess the actual question of giving us some certainty that Jesus shared bread made exclusively from wheat and not buckwheat or something else and if it was wheat, which variety is the one that carries His "essence"?

Originally Posted by tomdstone employing the fallacies of ad ridiculum, tu quoque and the sin of Exodus 20:16

LOLChange of subject?

The subject of denying Jesus some skills was sidestepped by Mr. Stone by referring to doing things as Jesus did. Do you see why you have difficulties to be taken seriously? Jesus Himself utilized not only wheat but other grains and you try to gain a futile victory in a discussion by disregarding this well-known fact as follows:

John 6:9
There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?

Barley has less guten than wheat. How many mg/g bread do you need gluten to make it compatible with Catholic Cannibalism? You should be able to give us an estimate as many gluten-free products also contain traces of these molecules. Are they not adequate?


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Originally Posted by Elmer G. White

This set the stage. Is it at all reasonable to claim that Jesus would not be present in products without gluten if He is at the same time omnipotent?

Firmly within the context of the well-formulated opening post. How do the Catholics know which grain or a mixture of them the home baker of Jesus used!

Implying i) that we should eat the same stuff that Jesus did (although we are not told if it was wheat) and ii) that we should do as our Lord tells us to do. OK. This can be answered albeit it is quite far from the focus of the discussion.



The subject of denying Jesus some skills was sidestepped by Mr. Stone by referring to doing things as Jesus did. Do you see why you have difficulties to be taken seriously? Jesus Himself utilized not only wheat but other grains and you try to gain a futile victory in a discussion by disregarding this well-known fact as follows:

John 6:9
There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?

Barley has less guten than wheat. How many mg/g bread do you need gluten to make it compatible with Catholic Cannibalism? You should be able to give us an estimate as many gluten-free products also contain traces of these molecules. Are they not adequate?


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

Jesus said - Do this in remembrance of me -.

You want to do something else in remembrance of Him.

[Elmer G. White]

Originally Posted by tomdstone

Jesus said - Do this in remembrance of me -.

You want to do something else in remembrance of Him.

Yes, eat bread, drink wine. I was asking what kind of bread! That is what your superiors are trying to establish by stating that it has to contain gluten. Please answer the following questions by referring to the numbers:

1. Did Jesus eat only products of wheat (hint: No, as evidenced by John 6:9)?
2. How do you know the bread on the last supper was gluten-rich wheat?
3. What is the "this" that Jesus mentioned: The act of sharing a meal or a particular proportion of gluten molecules in the product?
4. Which one is the "this" in your opinion?
5. Can you answer the questions posed and not go meandering into denial of the actual issue?
6. Will Ezekiel's recipe (please see below) be unsuitable for your rituals if you leave out the gluten-containing wheat?
7. Are your wafers ineffective if you leave out the millet?

Ezekiel 4:9
Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentiles, and millet, and fitches, and put them in one vessel, and make thee bread thereof, according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon thy side, three hundred and ninety days shalt thou eat thereof.



I am expecting actual answers to the actual questions.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Originally Posted by Elmer G. White

Yes, eat bread, drink wine. I was asking what kind of bread! That is what your superiors are trying to establish by stating that it has to contain gluten. Please answer the following questions by referring to the numbers:

1. Did Jesus eat only products of wheat (hint: No, as evidenced by John 6:9)?
2. How do you know the bread on the last supper was gluten-rich wheat?
3. What is the "this" that Jesus mentioned: The act of sharing a meal or a particular proportion of gluten molecules in the product?
4. Which one is the "this" in your opinion?
5. Can you answer the questions posed and not go meandering into denial of the actual issue?
6. Will Ezekiel's recipe (please see below) be unsuitable for your rituals if you leave out the gluten-containing wheat?
7. Are your wafers ineffective if you leave out the millet?

Ezekiel 4:9
Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentiles, and millet, and fitches, and put them in one vessel, and make thee bread thereof, according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon thy side, three hundred and ninety days shalt thou eat thereof.



I am expecting actual answers to the actual questions.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

The Catholic Church does allow the use of unleavened bread which is certified as gluten free by the FDA because such bread will contain an extremely small infinitesimal amount of gluten. However, once the substance does not contain any gluten at all, it is not considered bread and therefore would not qualify as suitable for Communion.

[Elmer G. White]

Originally Posted by Elmer G. White

1. Did Jesus eat only products of wheat (hint: No, as evidenced by John 6:9)?
2. How do you know the bread on the last supper was gluten-rich wheat?
3. What is the "this" that Jesus mentioned: The act of sharing a meal or a particular proportion of gluten molecules in the product?
4. Which one is the "this" in your opinion?
5. Can you answer the questions posed and not go meandering into denial of the actual issue?
6. Will Ezekiel's recipe (please see below) be unsuitable for your rituals if you leave out the gluten-containing wheat?
7. Are your wafers ineffective if you leave out the millet?

Originally Posted by tomdstone

1. ?????
2. ?????
3. ?????
4. ?????
5. ?????
6. ?????
7. ?????

The Catholic Church does allow the use of unleavened bread which is certified as gluten free by the FDA because such bread will contain an extremely small infinitesimal amount of gluten. However, once the substance does not contain any gluten at all, it is not considered bread and therefore would not qualify as suitable for Communion.

I can see no answer to any of the questions. You're just repeating the starting point of the thread by stating what your cult elders say but not justifying it. You obey the Catholic Church. It consists of men. We have another strategy.

Acts 5:29
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Originally Posted by Elmer G. White

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]

Originally Posted by tomdstone

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.

Originally Posted by tomdstone

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

Originally Posted by tomdstone

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.

Originally Posted by tomdstone

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]

Originally Posted by Elmer G. White

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]

Originally Posted by tomdstone

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:

Originally Posted by tomdstone

[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]

Originally Posted by tomdstone

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]

Originally Posted by Elmer G. White

^^^ 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]

Originally Posted by tomdstone

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]

Originally Posted by Elmer G. White

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]

Originally Posted by tomdstone

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.

Originally Posted by Elmer G. White

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:

Originally Posted by tomdstone

"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.

Originally Posted by Elmer G. White

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:

Originally Posted by tomdstone

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]

Originally Posted by Elmer G. White

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.