Is The Roman Catholic Church The Pillar And Ground Of The Truth (1 Timothy 3:15)?

          "1 Tim. 3:15 – Paul says the apostolic Church (not Scripture) is the pillar and foundation of the truth. But for the Church to be the pinnacle and foundation of truth, she must be protected from teaching error, or infallible. She also must be the Catholic Church, whose teachings on faith and morals have not changed for 2,000 years. God loves us so much that He gave us a Church that infallibly teaches the truth so that we have the fullness of the means of salvation in His only begotten Son." (https://www.scripturecatholic.com/the-biblical-church/)

          Nowhere did the Apostle Paul say anything in this verse, or in context, about the office of pope or an episcopal council. It does not even recognize a distinction between the classes of clergy and laity. So, Roman Catholic apologists are engaging in eisegesis here. 

          There is no exclusion of congregational membership involved here (i.e. "household of God"). Has the entire Christian church, therefore, been endowed the gift of infallibility by the power of the Holy Spirit? This was written to Timothy who was is in the city of Ephesus, not Rome. Is Ephesus therefore the "pillar and ground of the truth?"

          Notice that Paul states he is writing so that we may know how to conduct ourselves in the church. Furthermore, he appeals to his own writing as the standard of authority. Thus, Paul is writing to Timothy (i.e. Scripture) so that he would know how to behave in the household of God. This epistle is to help us in remembering apostolic traditions. 

          Scripture is what defines the conduct of elders in the church. Scripture is to function as the ultimate standard of authority, especially in light of the fact that the apostles are deceased. The purpose of this letter was, and still is, to tell the church how to behave in Paul's absence. If anything at all, this passage actually supports Sola Scriptura.

          It is fallacious to equate the church that supports and upholds the truth with the truth that it upholds. The church of God is simply the instrument by which the true gospel is supported and proclaimed. The church is the upholder, not the essence, of truth. The church is the custodian of the truth, not the source of truth itself.

          Ironically, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists resort to this text as a defense of their respective groups. At the same time, they maintain contradictory doctrine. This passage is vague enough to be applied to any religious organization in theory.

An Exegetical Case For Christ's Imputed Righteousness Based On 2 Corinthians 5:21

        "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Corinthians 5:17-21)

        The person who experiences genuine conversion of heart through the transforming power of the Holy Spirit will by definition become a “new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17), and thereby ceases to view the things of this world in carnal terms. We throw away the “old man” when we abandon our former sinful lifestyles (Ephesians 4:24). All of this takes place as a consequence of the Holy Spirit indwelling Himself in us.

        In the context of 2 Corinthians 5:17-21, the word “reconcile” describes resolving hostility between two enemy parties. The problem is not with God. It is on our end with our sinful nature which we inherited from Adam. Reconciliation involves a change of heart and mind that only God Himself can accomplish on our behalf through the propitiatory work of Christ (Romans 5:9-10).

        The Lord has appointed all members of His church to function as His representatives on earth by entrusting to us the “ministry of reconciliation,” which is the preaching of the gospel. It is the proclamation of the good news that the Son of God has forever put away sin through His sacrifice on the cross at Calvary. He is by no means an ordinary man, but is God in the flesh.

        To not impute sin against us means that God has pardoned us (Romans 4:4-7; 2 Corinthians 5:19). The present tense verbs found in 2 Corinthians 5:19 clearly denote continuous action (1 John 1:9). “The ministry of reconciliation” consists of the “ambassadors for Christ,” which are all the people who have been truly born again by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is a firmly established principle of Scripture that God does the reconciling work, not us (v. 18). Therefore, the text of 2 Corinthians 5:17-21 reinforces the concept of justification by faith alone.

        The text being discussed reveals three aspects of imputed righteousness, which are 1.) God imputes not our iniquity, 2.) sin is imputed to Christ, and 3.) His foreign righteousness is imputed to our account. Moreover, it is important to highlight the symmetrical correspondence of the wording found in verses nineteen and twenty-one: “…not counting their trespasses against them…he made him to be sin who did not know sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.”

        In other words, the spotless Lamb of God was “made sin” (i.e. our sins are not imputed against us), and His righteousness (i.e. the righteousness of God) was credited to us. Christ is our merciful substitute, in the same manner that the Apostle Paul desired that any of Onesimus’ (Philemon’s runaway slave) possible wrongdoings be charged against him instead (Philemon 18). From the perspective of justification, this text tells us that our righteousness is based on the righteousness of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:24-25). From the viewpoint of sanctification, His righteousness is applied to us daily.

The Church Fathers On The Perspicuity Of Scripture

Irenaeus (130-200) "For no question can be solved by means of another which itself awaits solution; nor, in the opinion of those possessed of sense, can an ambiguity be explained by means of another ambiguity, or enigmas by means of another greater enigma, but things of such character receive their solution from those which are manifest and consistent and clear." Ante-Nicene Fathers: Vol I, Against Heresies, 2.10.1 "..all Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found by us perfectly consisted; and the parables shall harmonise with those passages which are perfectly plain; and those statements the meaning of which is clear, shall serve to explain the parables; and through the many diversified utterances (of Scripture) there shall be heard one harmonious melody in us, praising in hymns that God who created all things." Ibid.

Tertullian (160-220) "Now, if even those purposes of God against cities, and nations, and kings, which are merely temporal, local and personal in their character, have been proclaimed so clearly in prophecy, how is it to be supposed that those dispensations of His which are eternal and of universal concern to the human race, should be void of all real light in themselves? The grander they are, the clearer should be their announcement, in order that their superior greatness might be believed. And I apprehend that God cannot possibly have ascribed to Him either envy, or guile, or inconsistency, or artifice, by help of which evil qualities it is that all schemes of unusual grandeur are litigiously promulgated." [I]ANF: Vol III, "On the Resurrection of the Flesh", Ch.21.

Basil of Caesarea (329-379) "Whatever seems to be spoken ambiguously or obscurely in some places of holy Scripture, is cleared up by what is plain and evident in other places" Regulas Brevius Tractatas, Interrogatio 267 Translated by William Whittaker.

Ambrose (339-397) "In most places Paul so explains his meaning by his own words, that he who discourses on them can find nothing to add of his own; and if he wishes to say anything, must rather perform the office of a grammarian than a discourser." Epistola XXXVII, PL 16:1084

Chrysostom (349-407) "let us follow the direction of Sacred Scripture in the interpretation it gives of itself, provided we don't get completely absorbed with the concreteness of the words, but realise that our limitations are the reason for the concreteness of the language. Human senses, you see, would never be able to grasp what is said if they had not the benefit of such great considerateness." Homilies on Genesis " Commenting on v. 4 of Psalm 45: "Do you see how Scripture interprets itself, showing the victory to be intellectual and spiritual?"

Jerome (347-420) "This passage to the ignorant, and to those who are unaccustomed to meditate on Holy Scripture, and who neither know nor use it, does appear at first sight to favour your opinion. But when you look into it, the difficulty soon disappears. And when you compare passages of Scripture with others, that the Holy Spirit may not seem to contradict Himself.." Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers 2: Vol VI St. Jerome Against the Pelagians, Book I.14

"...let us call upon the Lord, probe the depths of His sacred writings, and be guided in our interpretation by other testimonies from Holy Writ. Whatever we cannot fathom in the deep recess of the Old Testament, we shall penetrate and explain from the depth of the New Testament in the roar of God's cataracts--His prophets and apostles."Fathers of the Church Vol.57 The Homilies of St. Jerome: Vol 2, Homily 92, p 246

The above excerpts from patristic writers were taken from Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, by David T. King and William Webster, found on an online forum.

Does James 2:24 Teach That We Are Justified By Faith And Works?

        "You see then how a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." (James 2:24)

        The consistent teaching of the Bible is that works cannot justify us in the sight of God. For example, Paul says that we are justified "apart from works" and such happens with people who "do not work but believe" (Romans 4:4-5). The apostle elsewhere says, "not by works," (Ephesians 2:8-9), "not by works of righteousness which we have done," (Titus 3:5-7), and we are saved, "not according to our works" (2 Timothy 1:9). Therefore, the text of James 2:24 cannot be affirming that justification is merited in part by our good works or be the same concept found in Pauline contexts. 

        James occupies the word justify to mean vindication, or proven. He does not argue against justification by faith alone, but a salvation that stands without any good works to accompany it. In other words, one's lifestyle must be consistent with his profession of faith. It expresses itself in good works because the heart has been regenerated by the Spirit of God. If our Christian testimony is not supported with evidence of good character, then the unbelieving world will have no reason to deem our witness for Christ trustworthy or reliable.

        What James is saying is that we demonstrate the reality of our faith by good deeds. Are we going to merely talk the spiritual talk or actually going to walk the spiritual walk (James 2:14-17)? Are we only going to be hearers of the word or doers of the word (James 1:21-22; 26-27)? The question that James addresses is, "Can such faith save a man?" It is not enough to mentally accept the fact that God exists (James 2:19-20). Therefore, James distinguishes between two different kinds of faith. The demons acknowledge that whatever God says is the truth, but are not in fellowship with Him because they lack trust.

        Works are the product or result of a genuinely saving faith. James 2:18 especially echoes this theme (i.e. "a man may say...show me...I will show you..."). The language of vindication is also found in James 2:24 (i.e. "You see then..."). James provides two biblical examples to illustrate his point on the relationship between faith and works (James 2:21-25). The faith of Abraham and Rehab was tested and shown to be true. Faith was "perfected" in that it reached its design or end. An analogy is employed to make the point that faith and works cannot to be separated from each other (James 2:26). The Christian walk is one that glorifies God.

        James is not hereby discussing themes such as the blood of Christ or how one gets right with God, as does Paul (Romans 5:1-11). James occupies the term "justify" in the sense of vindication, which is employed in the same manner elsewhere throughout Scripture (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:29; 16:15; Romans 3:4). He focuses on Genesis 15:6 from an evidential perspective. The Apostle Paul in Romans and Galatians deals with the universal scope of man's depravity and condemnation by God's Law, whereas James addresses the narrower scope of hypocrisy within the church. Paul focuses on justification "in His sight" (Romans 3:20; 4:2).

The Text Of The New Testament Is Trustworthy

"About the middle of the last century it was confidently asserted by a very influential school of thought that some of the most important books of the New Testament, including the Gospels and the Acts, did not exist before the thirties of the second century AD.16 This conclusion was the result not so much of historical evidence as of philosophical presuppositions. Even then there was sufficient evidence to show how unfounded these theories were, as Lightfoot, Tischendorf, Tregelles and others demonstrated in their writings; but the amount of such evidence available in our own day is so much greater and more conclusive that a first-century date for most of the New Testament writings cannot reasonably be denied, no matter what our philosophical presuppositions may be.

The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians." Somehow or other, there are people who regard a `sacred book' as ipso facto under suspicion, and demand much more corroborative evidence for such a work than they would for an ordinary secular or pagan writing. From the viewpoint of the historian, the same standards must be applied to both. But we do not quarrel with those who want more evidence for the New Testament than for other writings; firstly, because the universal claims which the New Testament makes upon mankind are so absolute, and the character and works of its chief Figure so unparalleled, that we want to be as sure of its truth as we possibly can; and secondly, because in point of fact there is much more evidence for the New Testament than for other ancient writings of comparable date.

There are in existence over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part. The best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350, the two most important being the Codex Vaticanus, the chief treasure of the Vatican Library in Rome, and the well-known Codex Sinaiticus, which the British Government purchased from the Soviet Government for £loo,ooo on Christmas Day, 1933, and which is now the chief treasure of the British Museum. Two other important early mss in this country are the Codex Alexandrinus, also in the British Museum, written in the fifth century, and the Codex Bezae, in Cambridge University Library, written in the fifth or sixth century, and containing the Gospels and Acts in both Greek and Latin. Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar's Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 Bc) there are several extant mss, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some goo years later than Caesar's day. Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59 BC-AD 17) only thirty-five survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty mss of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books iii-vi, is as old as the fourth century. Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on two mss, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. The extant mss of his minor works (Dialogus de Oratoribus, Agricola, Germania) all descend from a codex of the tenth century. The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight Mss, the earliest belonging to c. AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era. The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest mss of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.

But how different is the situation of the New Testament in this respect! In addition to the two excellent mss of the fourth century mentioned above, which are the earliest of some thousands known to us, considerable fragments remain of papyrus copies of books of the New Testament dated from ioo to 200 years earlier still. The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, the existence of which was made public in 1931, consist of portions of eleven papyrus codices, three of which contained most of the New Testament writings. One of these, containing the four Gospels with Acts, belongs to the first half of the third century; another, containing Paul's letters to churches and the Epistle to the Hebrews, was copied at the beginning of the third century; the third, containing Revelation, belongs to the second half of the same century. A more recent discovery consists of some papyrus fragments dated by papyrological experts not later than AD 150, published in Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and other Early Christian Papyri, by H. I. Bell and T. C. Skeat (1935). These fragments contain what has been thought by some to be portions of a fifth Gospel having strong affinities with the canonical four; but much more probable is the view expressed in The Times Literary Supplement for 25 April 1935, `that these fragments were written by someone who had the four Gospels before him and knew them well; that they did not profess to be an independent Gospel; but were paraphrases of the stories and other matter in the Gospels designed for explanation and instruction, a manual to teach people the Gospel stories'.

Earlier still is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John 18:31-33, 37-38, now in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, dated on palaeographical grounds around AD 130, showing that the latest of the four Gospels, which was written, according to tradition, at Ephesus between AD 90 and loo, was circulating in Egypt within about forty years of its composition (if, as is most likely, this papyrus originated in Egypt, where it was acquired in 1917). It must be regarded as being, by half a century, the earliest extant fragment of the New Testament.

A more recently discovered papyrus manuscript of the same Gospel, while not so early as the Rylands papyrus, is incomparably better preserved; this is the Papyrus Bodmer II, whose discovery was announced by the Bodmer Library of Geneva in 1956; it was written about AD 200, and contains the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John with but one lacuna (of twenty-two verses), and considerable portions of the last seven chapters.19 Attestation of another kind is provided by allusions to and quotations from the New Testament books in other early writings. The authors known as the Apostolic Fathers wrote chiefly between AD 9o and 16o, and in their works we find evidence for their acquaintance with most of the books of the New Testament. In three works whose date is probably round about AD 100 - the `Epistle of Barnabas, written perhaps in Alexandria; the Didache, or `Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, produced somewhere in Syria or Palestine; and the letter sent to the Corinthian church by Clement, bishop of Rome, about AD 96 - we find fairly certain quotations from the common tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews,l Peter, and possible quotations from other books of the New Testament. In the letters written by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, as he journeyed to his martyrdom in Rome in AD 115, there are reasonably identifiable quotations from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and possible allusions to mark, Luke, Acts, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. His younger contemporary, Polycarp, in a letter to the Philippians (c. 120) quotes from the common tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Hebrews, i Peter, and i John. And so we might go on through the writers of the second century, amassing increasing evidence of their familiarity with and recognition of the authority of the New Testament writings. So far as the Apostolic Fathers are concerned, the evidence is collected and weighed in a work called The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, recording the findings of a committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology in 1905.

Nor is it only in orthodox Christian writers that we find evidence of this sort. It is evident from the recently discovered writings of the Gnostic school of Valentinus that before the middle of the second century most of the New Testament books were as well known and as fully venerated in that heretical circle as they were in the Catholic Church.20 The study of the kind of attestation found in mss and quotations in later writers is connected with the approach known as Textual Criticism.21 This is a most important and fascinating branch of study, its object being to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question. It is easily proved by experiment that it is difficult to copy out a passage of any considerable length without making one or two slips at least. When we have documents like our New Testament writings copied and recopied thousands of times, the scope for copyists' errors is so enormously increased that it is surprising there are no more than there actually are. Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small. The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.

To sum up, we may quote the verdict of the late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make pronouncements on ancient mss was second to none:

The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."

F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?

Is The Roman Catholic Eucharist Logical?

• How The Church Of Rome Perceives The Eucharist:

          -"By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity." (CCC # 1413)

          -"It would be easier for the world to survive without the sun than to do without the Holy Mass." (quoted attributed to Catholic priest Padre Pio)

          -"Then the Liturgy of the Eucharist began. I watched and listened as the priest pronounced the words of consecration and elevated the host. And I confess, the last drop of doubt drained away that moment. I looked and said, "My Lord and my God." As the people began going forward to receive communion, I literally began to drool, "Lord, I want you. I want communion more fully with you. You've come into my heart. You've become my personal Savior and Lord, but now I think You want to come onto my tongue and into my stomach, and into my body as well as my soul until this communion is complete." (Scott Hahn, from his conversion story titled Rome Sweet Home)

• A Detailed Critique Of Roman Catholic Teaching On Communion: 

          1.) Why would somebody eat human flesh and drink human blood? Is not cannibalism a sign of divine judgment (Leviticus 26:29; Deuteronomy 28:53-57; Ezekiel 5:10)?

          2.) Scripture defines the "gospel" as believing from the heart in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). If the eucharist is the source and summit of Christian life, then why is it never included in a biblical presentation of the gospel message? How come the earliest church creeds mention nothing about transubstantiation as being an essential article of the Christian faith?

          3.) Given that ancient pagan religions, such as Mithraism, had rituals involving sacred meals and symbolic consumption of divine substances, how do advocates of transubstantiation reconcile this parallel between such practices and the eucharist?

          4.) How does the alleged power of transubstantiation not imply that the authority of the parish priest is superior to that of Jesus Christ? Does he somehow become the creator of the Creator?

          5.) If we must interpret John 6 literally because Jesus Christ had stated six times to eat His flesh and to drink His blood, then why must we accept what Catholics say when they claim that the term "thousand years" in Revelation 20 is symbolic, yet repeated six times, in support of amillennialism? How does repetition translate into literalness?

          6.) Did not Jesus Christ literally say that all who eat His flesh and drink His blood will receive everlasting life (John 6:54)? Would that include unrepentant pagans and atheists? If we are going to be consistent with the literalist interpretation of the bread of life discourse, then should people who eat Christ's flesh and drink His blood (i.e. consecrated elements of the Mass) never physically hunger and thirst again (John 6:35)?

          7.) If Jesus' use of the Greek term "phago" (i.e. meaning to gnaw, chew, indicating a slow process) in John 6:54-58 decisively proves that we must interpret His words literally, then how come the disciples did not start consuming His flesh and drinking His blood right away?

          8.) Given the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, where every drop of wine, and every crumb of bread, is changed into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ while retaining their accidental properties as bread and wine, how does Rome reconcile this with the physical needs of the world, such as blood shortages?

          9.) What biblical basis exists to justify the notion that the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the mass are one and the same (CCC #1367)? How does this not sound like a concept from science fiction literature? What passage of Scripture affirms that His atonement is ongoing (CCC #1405)?

          10.) If the host is truly the literal body of Jesus Christ, then should we expect that the bread wafer never becomes stale, moldy, or goes through the process of decomposition (Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:27)? Could a scientist not conduct tests to confirm that the elements are still bread and wine after consecration?

          11.) Would a Roman Catholic priest be willing to consume the consecrated elements, if he knew that they had been saturated in poison prior to the instance of transubstantiation?

          12.) Did not Jesus Christ specifically instruct us to serve a cup of wine with the bread during communion (Matthew 26:26-29; 1 Corinthians 11:27-29)? How come the Roman Catholic Church was not consistent with apostolic practice from the twelfth century until changes were made during the Second Vatican Council in 1970? 

          13.) From 1570 to 1965, Roman Catholic Mass was held exclusively in Latin, leaving most attendees unable to understand the proceedings. After reforms, the first congregations to hear Mass in their native language were the Irish. This practice contrasts with the Apostle Paul's caution against speaking in unknown tongues without interpretation (1 Corinthians 14:19), which he believed did not edify the church. Why did the Church of Rome conduct all services in a language that few understood?

          14.) If transubstantiation is true, then how is it that the Corinthians, who had abused the Lord's Supper by treating it as a mere feast, had managed to become intoxicated with the wine (1 Corinthians 11:20-22)? Where was the change in substance that time?

          15.) If "this is my body" and "this is my blood" literally means that the bread and wine were transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ, then does "this cup is the new testament" literally mean that the literal cup becomes a literal covenant (Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:25)? In the New Testament, does not the word "is" occur with the meaning of "this is representative of" or "this symbolizes" (Matthew 13:20; Galatians 4:26)?

          16.) If the Lord's Supper was truly a mass service, then how could Jesus be sitting there at the same time proclaiming the bread and wine to be His literal flesh and blood? He would be sitting in a chair, while holding Himself up in the air, with His own two hands. Would we not have an illogical scenario of Jesus Christ offering Himself for our sins prior to the appointed time of His crucifixion?

          17.) If the human body of Christ is located in heaven, then how can it be at the same time in thousands of different places at masses across the globe?

          18.) If transubstantiation took place during the Lord's Supper, then would that not imply Jesus Christ had two physical bodies? Does this mean that there are multiple bodies of Christ? If each wafer becomes Christ, then does this not imply a multiplicity of Christs?

          19.) If the communion wafer is supposed to look identical after transubstantiation into the literal body of Christ, then why not also believe a religious leader when he claims to have the ability to transform us into inanimate objects such as iron? Should we believe the pope if he had just so happened to make an ex-cathedra statement declaring that priests have the ability to transform squares into triangles, or both (without a perceptible change)?

          20.) Transubstantiation and transgenderism are entirely separate issues, but share identical parallels in logic. Both operate on the assumption that things are not as they appear. Both involve things not aligning with what we observe in the natural world. The nature of the communion elements and the nature of a person's gender do not correspond to what they actually are. The DNA/chemical composition is ignored in both contexts: it's what I say it is, even though it it has all the qualities of something else. How does one account for this lack of consistency in teaching?

          21.) How do advocates of transubstantiation explain the fact that Jesus Christ ate the same bread and drank from the same cup that the Church of Rome claims became His actual body and blood (Matthew 26:27-29; Mark 14:23-25; Luke 22:7-16)? Did He eat His own flesh and drink His own blood? Why would Christ need to do so when He was already sinless (Hebrews 7:26-27)? Did not Jesus Christ say that He used figurative language on the night of the Last Supper (John 16:25-30)?

          22.) If the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation was taught in the church from its inception, then how come the issue was not discussed at the Jerusalem Council where the consumption of blood was frowned upon (Acts 15:20; 29; 21:25)? If the leadership who convened had actually believed in this dogma, then would they not have clarified that the blood of Christ was of a different or sacramental nature in order to avoid possible confusion?

          23.) If transubstantiation is true, then how can we know whether the apostles were not simply misled by their senses when they saw the resurrected Christ?

          24.) If the literalistic interpretation of the Last Supper is correct, then does that mean Roman Catholics who partake of the eucharist become living tabernacles? If the consecrated wafer is the body of Christ, then should we not be able to use it in the process of cloning Him? How is eating a man's flesh and drinking his blood communion?

          25.) Transubstantiation conflicts with the nature of the miracles that take place throughout biblical history. Two examples would include Jesus changing water into wine at the marriage at Cana (John 2:1-10) and the doubting Thomas touching His pierced hands and feet after His resurrection (John 20:26-29). Unlike transubstantiation, biblical miracles were recognizable to the five senses. Why would this instance be an exception to the rule?

          26.) If transubstantiation is true, then would that mean the full human body of Christ is literally inside the stomachs of partakers during the liturgical service? Getting all of that into our mouths at one time would be an impossibility. Our digestive systems do not have the capacity to hold that much weight at a single time. 

           27.) Jesus Christ has a material body, just as we all do. That means His body and blood would have been consumed a long time ago, making their consumption in future generations a logical impossibility. What else is sacrificed during the mass, except one's own common sense?

           28.) How can one consume blood in a non-bloody fashion? How can one eat soul and divinity when chewing is a physical process?

           29.) If it is true that the eucharist is Jesus, wholly and entirely, then no one would be able to stand in its presence. That would entail Him being in His full glory. The closest person to have done so was the Apostle John, who fell “as a dead man” when He saw His closest friend, Jesus, in all His glory (Revelation 1:17). What Roman Catholics have ever fallen as dead men, paralyzed in the presence of the eucharist?

           30.) If the communion elements are indeed the actual body and blood of Christ, then how do we explain the apparent lack of immediate and observable transformation in the personality or behavior of individuals after partaking in communion? Should not such a profound and intimate encounter with Christ result in a more noticeable and immediate impact on one's life, reflecting a significant spiritual and moral transformation?

           31.) If the elements of communion are deemed to be the actual body and blood of Christ, does this imply that Christ is subject to digestion? What happens to the essence of Christ within us after consumption?

           32.) If transubstantiation is true, then how do we logically account for the fact that the elements of bread and wine can seemingly exist in two states simultaneously: as ordinary bread and wine in appearance, but as the body and blood of Christ in substance? Does this not violate the principle of identity, where something cannot be entirely itself and entirely something else at the same time?  How does this duality align with the law of non-contradiction, which states that a thing cannot be both itself and not itself at the same time? How can the accidents of bread and wine exist without their original substance after transubstantiation?

Consistent Atheism Thought Out Hypothetically

"Then I learned that all moral judgments are “value judgments,” that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured it out for myself – what apparently the Chief Justice couldn’t figure out for himself – that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any ‘reason’ to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring – the strength of character – to throw off its shackles…. I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable ‘value judgment’ that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these ‘others’? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a high’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as ‘moral’ or ‘good’ and others as ‘immoral’ or ‘bad’? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me – after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self."

http://www.mandm.org.nz/2008/12/cultural-confusion-and-ethical-relativism-iii.html

An Exegetical And Theological Analysis Of 1 Corinthians 3:10-15

          "According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." (1 Corinthians 3:10-15, emphasis added)

          Paul tells his audience at Corinth that he was but a servant of God. It was His grace that worked through the apostle to bring about the conversion of people to Christianity at that city. Members of the church needed to focus their admiration on God rather than man. Paul was as an instrument being played at an orchestra. God used the apostles to grow His church. Compare the language of a master builder in verse ten to Proverbs 8:30.

          The reference to "the Day" is to the Day of Judgment. Compare with 1 Thessalonians 5:2-9. In Christ, we receive deliverance from the eschatological wrath of God. The "fire" reveals the truth as to the state of our lives and doctrine while alive on this earth. If the Christian's work withstands this testing, then he will receive praise from God (v. 14). Jesus Christ is the foundation of our salvation. Our good works are to be motivated by an earnest desire to glorify Him.

          God will evaluate the quality of every man's work. He will inspect both our actions and the motives behind those actions. Charity done with selfish ambitions in mind will not be accepted by Him. Paul's mentioning of gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, and straw corresponds to the quality of our works done in service to God. The Greek word for "through" in verse 15 is similar to that found in 1 Peter 3:20. If a person's works do not make it through this divine testing, he will be saved in spite of this "fire" or regardless of danger. The archeologist Paul T. Craddock wrote:

          "...metal was smelted in small furnaces blown by bellows. The more rigorous melting smelting meant that is was now possible to melt out the waste material in the ore (known as the gangue) as a liquid slag that could be periodically tapped out of the furnace, enabling the process to continue for many hours and a considerable body of metal to build up in the bottom of the furnace. The long-term excavation and scientific study of the mines and smelters at Feinan, and also at the Timna of Israel, have greatly increased our knowledge of the development of nonferrous smelting technologies in the Bronze Age." (The Oxford Companion to Archeology, p. 461, under "Metallurgy in the Old World")

          This imagery can be powerful in illustrating Paul's point about the purification and testing of one's work in Christ. Just as the furnace removes impurities from metal, the fire in Paul's metaphor represents trials and testing that reveal the true motives of one's heart. The rigorous process of melting and separating the slag from the metal can parallel the spiritual refinement and the discernment of lasting works versus perishable ones in the life of a believer. The historical and technological context of smelting furnishes the understanding of Paul's metaphor. It shows how thorough and enduring work in faith is what will ultimately stand the test of time and divine judgment, much like the purified metals that come out of the furnace.

          If a man's works fail to pass through the testing of fire, then he will be saved. Whether his works make it past this trial or not, the Christian remains delivered from the sentence of eternal condemnation. Thus, claims to personal merit are silenced in either scenario. Grace shows itself even in the presence of judgment. Justification before God is not determined on the basis of good deeds. Compare this message with Romans 4:4-5, which says that justification is not an earned wage, but a free gift from God. The person whose works fail this testing will still be shown mercy, but is taking foolish risks with Him.

Jehovah's Witnesses Refuted: Yahweh Is More Accurate Than Jehovah

In the religious landscape, few subjects spark as much debate as the proper pronunciation of the divine name. The Jehovah's Witnesses, a sect known for its distinctive use of "Jehovah" to denote God, provide an interesting case study in discussion. Consider this excerpt from the Jehovah's Witnesses Watchtower Society:

“While inclining to view the pronunciation 'Yahweh' as the more correct way, we have retained the form 'Jehovah' because of people's familiarity with it since the 14th century.” (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, 1969, p. 23).

This statement highlights their awareness of the linguistic nuances involved, but underscores a choice driven by tradition rather than philological accuracy. 

Historical Evolution and Misinterpretation:

The name "Jehovah" emerged from a combination of the consonants YHWH (known as the Tetragrammaton) and the vowels of "Adonai," a Hebrew word meaning "Lord." This form was first used in medieval Christian texts, but lacks a basis in ancient Hebrew pronunciation. The name "Yahweh" is widely accepted among scholars as a closer approximation of the original Hebrew. The synthesis of YHWH with the vowels of "Adonai" led to a linguistic amalgamation that resulted in "Jehovah," which does not align with Hebrew grammar and pronunciation rules.

Scholarly Consensus:

Confirmation from Jewish scholarship solidifies this perspective:

“A mispronunciation (introduced by Christian theologians, but almost entirely disregarded by the Jews) of the Hebrew "Yhwh," the (ineffable) name of God (the Tetragrammaton or "Shem ha-Meforash"). This pronunciation is grammatically impossible; it arose through pronouncing the vowels of the "ḳere" (marginal reading of the Masorites: = "Adonay") with the consonants of the "ketib" (text-reading: = "Yhwh")—"Adonay" (the Lord) being substituted with one exception wherever Yhwh occurs in the Biblical and liturgical books. "Adonay" presents the vowels "shewa" (the composite under the guttural א becomes simple under the י), "ḥolem," and "ḳameẓ," and these give the reading (= "Jehovah"). Sometimes, when the two names and occur together, the former is pointed with "ḥatef segol" under the י —thus, (="Jehovah")—to indicate that in this combination it is to be pronounced "Elohim." These substitutions of "Adonay" and "Elohim" for Yhwh were devised to avoid the profanation of the Ineffable Name (hence is also written , or even , and read "ha-Shem" = "the Name ")." (Emil G. Hirsch, The Jewish Encyclopedia, entry on Jehovah) 

"The reading "Jehovah" is a comparatively recent invention. The earlier Christian commentators report that the Tetragrammaton was written but not pronounced by the Jews (see Theodoret, "Question. xv. in Ex." [Field, "Hexapla," i. 90, to Ex. vi. 3]; Jerome, "Præfatio Regnorum," and his letter to Marcellus, "Epistola," 136, where he notices that "PIPI" [= ΠIΠI = ] is presented in Greek manuscripts; Origen, see "Hexapla" to Ps. lxxi. 18 and Isa. i. 2; comp. concordance to LXX. by Hatch and Redpath, under ΠIΠI, which occasionally takes the place of the usual κύριος, in Philo's Bible quotations; κύριος = "Adonay" is the regular translation; see also Aquila)." (Ibid.)

Jewish scholars, who possess a profound understanding of Hebrew linguistics and history, emphasize that "Jehovah" is a later construction. It is not a reflection of the ancient Hebrew tongue. The preference for "Yahweh" aligns more accurately with historical and linguistic evidence.

"This personal name, written with the consonants YHWH, was considered too sacred to he uttered; so the vowels for the words 'my Lord' or 'God' were added to the consonants YHWH, and the reader was warned by these vowels that he must substitute other consonants. This change having to be made so frequently, the Rabbis did not consider it necessary to put the consonants of the new reading in the margin . . YHWH was read with the intruded vowels, the vowels of an entirely different word, namely 'my Lord' or 'God'. In late medieval times this mispronunciation became current as Jehovah, and it was unwittingly taken over as Jehovah by the reformers in the Protestant Bibles.” (The New English Bible, Introduction of the Old Testament)

Morally Corrosive

"And “morally corrosive” is exactly the term that some critics would apply to the new science of the moral sense. The attempt to dissect our moral intuitions can look like an attempt to debunk them. Evolutionary psychologists seem to want to unmask our noblest motives as ultimately self-interested — to show that our love for children, compassion for the unfortunate and sense of justice are just tactics in a Darwinian struggle to perpetuate our genes. The explanation of how different cultures appeal to different spheres could lead to a spineless relativism, in which we would never have grounds to criticize the practice of another culture, no matter how barbaric, because “we have our kind of morality and they have theirs.” And the whole enterprise seems to be dragging us to an amoral nihilism, in which morality itself would be demoted from a transcendent principle to a figment of our neural circuitry.

Here is the worry. The scientific outlook has taught us that some parts of our subjective experience are products of our biological makeup and have no objective counterpart in the world. The qualitative difference between red and green, the tastiness of fruit and foulness of carrion, the scariness of heights and prettiness of flowers are design features of our common nervous system, and if our species had evolved in a different ecosystem or if we were missing a few genes, our reactions could go the other way. Now, if the distinction between right and wrong is also a product of brain wiring, why should we believe it is any more real than the distinction between red and green? And if it is just a collective hallucination, how could we argue that evils like genocide and slavery are wrong for everyone, rather than just distasteful to us?"

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html