The Philosophical Incoherence Of The Mormon God

        The Mormon church professes belief in a plurality of gods. It teaches a concept called eternal progression, which is the idea that men can work to attain godhood. The Mormon understanding of deity can not only be easily refuted from a biblical point of view, but also suffers due to being by its very nature logically incoherent.

        The problems arise from the fact that Mormons believe God to have once been a mortal man who needed to reach a standard of perfection in order to be considered divine. The propositions of God being uncreated and God once being formed are mutually exclusive.

        If God is not without beginning or end, then He must be subject to an additional transcendental truth (which cannot exist without an infinite mind). He must be held accountable to a standard higher than Himself. He must be under the dominion of some other gods. It would be self-contradictory to argue that God has always been eternal and unchanging while at the same time believing that He had to become a perfect deity. Yet, that is what the Mormons proclaim as truth.

        The Mormon concept of God leaves us with numerous questions. Who was the first god? Who within the infinite succession of gods set the universe into motion? On what basis could there be moral absolutes? How did the Mormon god obtain omniscience in the first place (appealing to infinite regression does not get us anywhere)? If all Mormon gods are supposed to have mortal human bodies, then what about the Holy Spirit who does not have one and is considered a god?

Should Translators Place A Comma Before Or After The Word "Today" In Luke 23:43?

          "And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." (Luke 23:43)

          This passage of Scripture has played a crucial role in the debate on the immortality of the soul. It has traditionally been argued that, since Jesus Christ promised the repentant thief who was crucified with Him entrance into heaven that very day upon physical death, our souls must continue to remain conscious after physical death. That interpretation, if upheld, would indeed fly in the face of the erroneous doctrine of conditional immortality.

          Proponents of soul sleep correctly point out that the Greek language has no commas. Punctuation marks were added to manuscripts after the New Testament was written. Based on that fact, it has been argued that the correct placement of the comma should be incorporated after the word today. In other words, it has been suggested that Luke 23:43 should read as follows: "Truly I say to you today, you shall be with Me in Paradise." It would change the meaning of the text to mean that Christ spoke to him at that moment the promise of entering into paradise at some undefined point in the future as opposed to that same day of death. The timing of believers entering into paradise would therefore be at the final resurrection.

          While both variant readings are theoretically acceptable, the objective of here is to argue in defense of a comma being inserted prior to the word today. First and foremost, the context demands that we understand the reference to today as meaning on that very same day. The dying criminal understood on what day that Christ spoke those comforting words. There was no need for Him to emphasize the timing of today. It would literally make no sense for a man who is suffocating and dying on a crucifix to make such a hasty waste of his words. 

          In this grand episode of the incarnate Lord gently and affectionately showing forth clemency in response to the converted convict's petition, we see Him referencing to a paradise consistent with popular Jewish thought about the unseen Edenic realm. This abode for the righteous is analogous to Abraham's bosom, which is mentioned in Luke 16:22. Further, "today" in Luke 23:43 is contrasted with "When you come into your kingdom" in Luke 24:42. Thus, the repentant thief entered heaven the instant he died.

          In Luke's Gospel, the term "today" (Greek: σήμερον) is used with an emphasis on immediacy and fulfillment of promises. For example, in Luke 4:21, Jesus declares, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing," indicating the present fulfillment of prophecy. Similarly, in Luke 19:9, Jesus says, "Today salvation has come to this house," referring to Zacchaeus's immediate salvation. The usage of "today" in these contexts supports the interpretation that Jesus promised the thief immediate entry into paradise.

          The phrase "Truly I say to you" (Greek: ἀμήν λέγω σοι) is a formula used by Jesus to preface a significant statement. In nearly every occurrence of this phrase in the Gospels, what follows is an assurance or a promise. Placing the comma before "today" aligns with this pattern, as Jesus is giving a definitive promise of salvation to the thief. If "today" were intended to modify "I say to you," it would create redundancy and detract from the impact of the promise.

          The Gospel of Luke places strong emphasis on themes of salvation and immediate divine intervention. For example, in Luke 19:10, Jesus declares, "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost." This urgency in Jesus' mission aligns with the promise of immediate paradise to the repentant thief, emphasizing the immediacy of salvation and the fulfillment of Jesus' redemptive work.

          In Jewish literature and thought, the term "today" often signifies immediacy in entering the afterlife or receiving a divine reward. This understanding aligns with the notion of the righteous entering paradise or Abraham's bosom immediately after death, as seen in Jewish texts like the Talmud. Thus, the use of "today" in Luke 23:43 fits within the broader context of Jewish eschatological beliefs.

          The cultural context of Second Temple Judaism, which informed the beliefs and expectations of Jesus' contemporaries, emphasized an immediate reward or punishment after death. This is evident in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), where the characters' fates are sealed immediately upon death. The rich man and Lazarus are depicted as experiencing their respective rewards and punishments without delay. This cultural understanding supports the interpretation of "today" in Luke 23:43 as indicating immediate entrance into paradise.

1 Timothy 2:5 ("One Mediator Between God And Man") And Roman Catholic Apologetics

• Discussion:

          -The purpose of this article to rebut claims made by Sonja Corbitt in defense of Roman Catholic Mariology and an ordained ministerial priesthood in light of 1 Timothy 2:5. She largely just uses semantics here rather than actually addressing relevant issues. This critique begins with a citation from the author in bold letters and is followed with critical comments:

          "Indeed. Did Jesus carry you in his womb? And after your conception, gestation, and birth, what then? Have you not been fed, clothed, educated, loved, provided for, and protected by someone who is not Jesus unto this day?"

          This rhetoric is only designed to sidestep the real issue at hand. How could the Apostle Paul consistently affirm Jesus Christ to be our "one mediator" when there is supposedly a bunch of other lesser mediators? The author does not provide a clear-cut explanation as to how or why this can be. In that same text, Paul says that there is "one God." Based on the reasoning of the author, should we deduce the existence of mini-gods?

          "Does everything you know about Christ come from Christ himself? Did Jesus baptize you? Did Jesus teach you to read or read the Scriptures to you? Did Jesus hand-write your Bible, gather its writings, or physically protect the Deposit of Faith for 2000 plus years until you could receive it from his literal mouth?"

          The author merely filibusters the issue of what it means for Jesus Christ to be the one mediator between God and man. Christ came to reconcile sinners to a holy God. Only He, being sinless and divine, could make our redemption happen through His atonement sacrifice. We are to place our trust in Christ alone. He handles our prayers before God. Christ alone is our intercessor before God.

          "You are prayed for by other people. You are taught the Word of God by a person. And people even forgive one another! All the time if they’re obedient to Jesus, “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."

          When we pray on behalf of other Christians, we are not praying to them or through them. Prayer is done to God through Christ alone. The New Testament establishes Him as being the mediator between God and man without any reference to saints and angels (Hebrews 9:13-15; Hebrews 12:24).

          There is a distinction between the forgiveness of sin committed between offended parties and the forgiveness before God made available through the cross. It is also fallacious to conflate teaching Scripture with being a mediator of His grace. Petitioning God in prayer nowhere amounts to functioning as a channel of God's mercy or applying the benefits of Christ's atonement to other people.

          "Catholic confession and forgiveness through a priest follows the same pattern. The Pharisees also made the “God is the only mediator” claim against Jesus in this very matter: “No man can forgive sins, but God only” (Luke 5:21).

          The point that Jesus Christ makes in Luke 5 is that He is God in the flesh. As such, He would indeed have the authority to pardon our iniquity. Also, there is an element of irony that is worthy of consideration here. Even the Scribes and Pharisees of the Law were not arrogant enough to think that they had the ability to forgive the sins of God's people. Yet, the Roman Catholic priesthood has without guilt or embarrassment took upon itself precisely that role!

          Some may argue that God alone forgives sin through a priest, but that premise is self-defeating. In that scenario, there would still be an additional party involved in Jesus Christ's mediatorship. Believers are to approach God for the forgiveness of sin directly through Christ. We do not need to consult sinful men in order to access the grace provided through the cross (Hebrews 4:14-16). We are to approach Jesus Christ directly for the forgiveness of any and all sins.

Does 1 Corinthians 15:50 Say That We Will Not Be Raised With Physical Bodies?

• Discussion:

          -A common proof text of the Jehovah's Witnesses cited in their rejection of Jesus Christ resurrecting bodily from the grave and for its so-called special class of 144,000 being resurrected as spirit beings is 1 Corinthians 15:50, which is cited as follows:

          "Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."

          Notice how Jesus Christ said that He had flesh and bones so as to prove to His disciples that He was not merely a ghost (Luke 24:39-40). The presence of His hands and feet shows that He was not only immaterial, for it would have been impossible for Him to do so had things been otherwise. Moreover, God took His faithful servant Enoch directly into heaven in his physical body (Genesis 5:24). We are given no indication of him becoming only a spirit being.

          The final resurrection of the dead will not involve us leaving our mortal bodies behind to decompose. Rather, we will "put on" the imperishable (1 Corinthians 15:53-55). God will eventually perfect our physical bodies. Our nature will be restored back to what it was prior to the fall. This process will be done instantaneously (1 Corinthians 15:52). The phrase "flesh and blood" is a euphemism for humanity in its fallen state.

          We must be raised up and glorified to enter into the New Heavens and New Earth in the same manner that Christ was. He has a real, tangible body. He ascended in a human body (Acts 1). He currently is a man mediating between believers and God (1 Timothy 2:5). He will come again to judge the world as a man (Acts 17:31). In Christ dwells (present tense) all the fullness of deity in bodily form (Colossians 2:9).

Debunking The Jehovah's Witness Teaching On The 144,000

• Discussion:

          -The Watchtower Society teaches that there is a literal, anointed class of 144,000 Christians who will inherit the kingdom of God and reign with Christ. Other believers who qualify to fit into a secondary rank will get to dwell together in a world of paradise under the headship of the 144,000. To summarize, the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain a distinction among types of redeemed people.

           The Bible does not place a specific limit on the number of people who can enjoy spending eternity with God in heaven. Everybody who asks receives, and everybody who seeks will find (Matthew 7:8). There is no spiritual distinction among those who have placed their trust in the righteousness of God (Romans 3:21-22). The Apostle Paul says without setting forth any categories that our citizenship is in the heavenly sanctuary above (Philippians 3:20). Jesus Christ said that the "household" of the Father is comprised of "many rooms" (John 14:2-3).

          If the Jehovah's Witnesses are correct in their understanding regarding the 144,000 people spoken of in Revelation chapters 7 and 14, then that would mean (in order to remain consistent with the rest of the context) only a small remnant of Jewish people could be saved. With that point comes other inferences that are ludicrous. Charles Taze Russell would be excluded from heaven because he was not a Jew. The Apostle Peter would be excluded from heaven because he was not a virgin. All women would be excluded from heaven because the context identifies all members of this group to be males (which would be sexist).

          These believing Jewish males could very well be ordained by God from the twelve tribes of Israel to preach the gospel in the midst of tribulational calamity (Revelation 14:1-3). Other commentators take this reference to the 144,000 to be a symbolic representation of the entire body of the saints. After all, Revelation 7:9-10 says that countless multitudes of people were standing before the throne of God worshiping and singing praises. Nonetheless, the idea that only 144,000 people will enter heaven is untenable.

          Strangely enough, the idea of an eternal paradise earth for a secondary class of believers was introduced into the Jehovah's Witness sect by Joseph Rutherford, the second president of the Watchtower Tract and Bible Society. It was not taught by Charles Taze Russell, who is reputed to be the founder of what has been termed the Bible Study Movement. This teaching has not been present among the Jehovah's Witnesses from the very beginning.

Was Mary Magdalene A Prostitute?

"There is no evidence that the early church tried to tarnish Mary Magdalene’s reputation by making her out to be a prostitute. Any reference to her as a prostitute does not come from the Bible. Here is what we do know of Mary from the biblical record: Seven demons were cast out of her by Jesus (Luke 8:2); she witnessed the horror of the crucifixion (Matthew 27:32-56); she was present at the burial of Jesus (Matthew 27:57-61); she, along with two other women, went to anoint the body of Jesus (Mark 16:1), and she was the first person to see Jesus in his resurrected body (John 20:10-18).

Some have surmised that since her name and story appear immediately following the account of a prostitute, the two are one and the same woman (see Luke 7:36-8:2). But there is no biblical support for this conclusion. (Most historians agree that the reference to Mary Magdalene as a prostitute was started in the sixth century by Pope Gregory I). Still others have conjectured that she is the anonymous woman caught in adultery. There is no evidence to support that assumption, either. Some have guessed that she might have been a prostitute simply because she came from Magdala, which was often associated with prostitution. Once again, the Bible says no such thing. Any association of Mary of Magdala with either of the above-mentioned anonymous women would have been merely a result of conjecture--or very careless scholarship--probably dating to the Middle Ages, as opposed to a smear campaign."

James L. Garlow and Peter Jones, Cracking Da Vinci’s Code, p. 59-60

Was Jesus Christ Crucified On A Cross Or A Stake As The Jehovah's Witnesses Claim?

• The Greek Terms Stauros And Xulon:

          -The Greek word stauros has been a subject of much debate regarding its meaning in the context of crucifixion. Historically, stauros could refer to a pole or stake, not necessarily the traditional cross shape commonly associated with Christian symbolism. Various forms of crucifixion existed, as noted by Seneca the Younger who observed, "I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet.”
          -In addition, the Greek word xulon describes anything made from wood and could be used to refer to a tree. In the New Testament, specifically Galatians 3:13, the Apostle Paul quotes Deuteronomy 21:22-23, which originally spoke of people being hanged on trees as a sign that they were cursed by God. This context emphasizes that the form of the crucifixion device, whether a cross or a stake, is secondary to its symbolic significance.

• Biblical Evidence Of The Traditional Cross:

          -Despite the linguistic flexibility of stauros and xulon, there is compelling biblical evidence supporting the traditional cross shape:
            *The doubting Thomas encounter (John 20:24-29): This passage mentions nails (plural) piercing Jesus' hands, suggesting multiple nails, which aligns with the cross having an extended horizontal beam.
            *Pontius Pilate's inscription (Matthew 27:37; Luke 23:38): The inscription nailed above Jesus' head indicates an elevated structure, consistent with a cross rather than a stake.
            *Peter's Foretelling (John 21:18): Jesus describes Peter's future crucifixion by Roman guards, emphasizing the stretching out of hands, which mirrors the traditional crucifixion posture.

• Controversy With The Jehovah's Witnesses:

          -Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that Jesus was crucified on a stake, not a cross. Originally, the Watchtower Society taught that He died on a cross but later shifted this stance. This change has sparked theological debates, particularly given the biblical descriptions that support the traditional cross shape.

• The Jehovah's Witnesses And Bodily Resurrection:

          -Jehovah's Witnesses also contend that Jesus did not resurrect in a physical body, but as a spirit. Scriptural accounts, however, affirm the physical resurrection of Jesus. Luke 24:39 explicitly shows Jesus inviting His disciples to touch Him and witness that He has flesh and bones. Moreover, in Luke 24:40-43, Jesus eats in front of His disciples, further proving His physical form. John 2:19-22 emphasizes that Jesus' body was indeed resurrected, countering the notion of a purely spiritual resurrection.

A Critical Exposure Of The Clear Word Bible

• Discussion:

          -The Clear Word Bible is a paraphrase written by Jack J. Blanco and made available to the public by the Review and Herald Publishing Association in March 1994. This product of the Seventh-Day Adventist church was designed to be an amplified version of Scripture. The Clear Word Bible was made for devotional use. Nonetheless, this paraphrase is to be avoided because it contains textual modifications aimed at reflecting aberrant Seventh-Day Adventist theology. It contains bias in support of false doctrines such as annihilationism and Sabbatarianism. Following are examples of textual perversion within the Clear Word Bible:

• Genesis 2:2-3:

          -"Then on the seventh day of creation week, God stopped to enjoy what He had made and to rest in the beauty of it all. So He blessed the seventh day and set it apart as a day of spiritual refreshment and joy." (Clear Word Bible)

          -"By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made." (New American Standard Bible)
          -"And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation." (English Standard Version)

            *The Seventh-Day Adventist rendering of this passage makes the seventh day a day of creation when the process was actually completed on the sixth. The Sabbath is introduced prior to the time when the Bible itself reveals that day (Exodus 16).

• Genesis 35:18:

          -"But Rachel didn’t survive the birth, and as she was dying, she named her baby Benoni, which means Son of My Sorrow, but Jacob renamed the baby Benjamin, meaning Son of My Right Hand." (Clear Word Bible)

          -"It came about as her soul was departing (for she died), that she named him Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin." (New American Standard Bible)
          -"And as her soul was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin." (English Standard Version)

            *The Seventh-Day Adventist rendering of Genesis 35:18 is clearly biased in favor of the false teaching called soul sleep.

• Matthew 25:46:

          -"I have no choice but to end your lives, because in my kingdom everyone cares about everyone else.” (Clear Word Bible)

          -"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (New American Standard Bible)
          -"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (English Standard Version)

            *This verse has been altered so drastically in the Clear Word Bible that it barely resembles how reputable translations render Matthew 25:46. The translators grasped at straws here to avoid the clearly unfavorable implications of this passage as it relates to annihilationism.

• John 10:30:

          -"You see, my Father and I are so close, we're one." (Clear Word Bible)

          -"I and the Father are one." (New American Standard Bible)
          -"I and the Father are one." (English Standard Version)

            *The Seventh-Day Adventist rendering of this text is problematical because it describes a relational oneness rather than ontological. The oneness spoken of in John 10:30 is of being or the nature of God, not merely relational closeness.

• Hebrews 4:9:

          -"So there still remains the offer of spiritual rest that God intends for each generation to have, of which the Sabbath is a symbol." (Clear Word Bible)

          -"So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God." (New American Standard Bible)
          -"So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God." (English Standard Version)

            *This passage, when taken in context, plainly tells us that it is through Jesus Christ that we enter into the promised rest of God. It has nothing to do with Christians observing a weekly Sabbath.

• Comments From Wayne A. Grudem On The Poor Quality Of The Clear Word Bible:

          -"I do not think anyone should trust The Clear Word as a reliable translation of the Bible, or even as a useful paraphrase. It repeatedly distorts the teaching of the Bible. It removes significant content that is in the original Hebrew or Greek, and adds new ideas that are not found in the original texts. Verse after verse has been changed simply to support unusual Seventh-day Adventist doctrines, but these changes are not supported by reliable translations such as the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, RSV, or NIV, or even by dynamic equivalence translations such as the New Living Translation or free paraphrases such as The Message. I was deeply troubled as I read various verses because it was clear that these verses were no longer the words of God only, but the words of God mixed in with many words of man, and ordinary readers of The Clear Word will not be able to tell the difference."

Is It Wrong To Celebrate Easter?

        It would be inaccurate to consider Easter, also known as Resurrection Sunday, a pagan holiday. Christians have for centuries set aside that time to specifically celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That day was formally recognized as such when Roman Emperor Constantine called for the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. The annual dating for this holiday is determined by moon cycles as was the Jewish Passover, though both religious observances are distinct. Differences in timing and how the Easter celebration was to take place can be traced back to the earlier second century.

        Any parallels to pagan symbolism would be the result of primitive believers interacting with the culture of their day. Nonetheless, customs and traditions are not inherently sinful (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Scripture records believers assembling on Sunday (Acts 20:7-12), yet it nowhere mandates us to gather on that day. Is the church service being conducted in accordance with the Word of God? Thus, we see what amounts to a biblically permitted tradition. The question of Easter is one that deserves fair treatment.

        Most things nowadays have pagan parallels, which would even include the names of planets in our solar system and days of the week. Can we do anything at all? Can we use anything? Similarities do not in and of themselves prove something to be evil or malicious. Similarities do not inherently prove a logical connection or association. Symbols are subject to reinterpretation and can therefore be reused.  If pagans once did something, that does not necessarily mean Christians cannot do them for good reasons or simply for fun. Pagans also eat, walk, talk, and breath.

        Resurrection Sunday was celebrated by Christians long before it was made about the mythical creature called the Easter Bunny. The holiday points us to Christ, namely His resurrection. That historical event is of pivotal significance to our faith. If Jesus Christ has not been raised from the dead, then our faith would be in vain. That point is certainly worthy of repeated commemoration. Such a ceremony does not exceed or violate the principles of Scripture.

        Claims of Easter being pagan originated with pagans themselves and secularists who detest the truth of the gospel. The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. No mere man has the power to make a day that God created corrupt. Christians who dogmatically condemn the celebration are guilty of making category errors and oversimplifications. No sacrifices or homage is given to false gods in the process. The English term Easter comes from the Old German word "erstehen," which means coming back to life. It does not pertain to the celebration of anything pagan.

        The form of compromise (which Easter is not) Scripture condemns is that which hinders service or allegiance rightfully belonging to God alone. There comes a point when separation no longer resembles a desire to grow in sanctification but a religious recluse. The latter is not the way God wants us to be. If we were to be absolutely disconnected from the world, then He would have to remove us at this very instant. We are to engage the culture with our beliefs, but lovingly stand firm in so doing.

        Even the act of painting eggs or the idea of imaginary rabbits are nothing more than childish means of entertainment. Such is not inherently involved or related to the worship of idols. Whether or not a Christian chooses to observe Easter is entirely a matter of conscience or personal preference. It is not meant to be a test of orthodoxy. It is not a matter to break fellowship over.

Is The Roman Catholic Eucharist Cannibalism?

• Discussion:

          -Tim Staples of Catholic Answers wrote an article with the intent of addressing the charge of transubstantiation entailing cannibalism. Each of his arguments are cited in bold and followed with critical commentary:

         "First, Catholics do not receive our Lord in a cannibalistic form. Catholics receive him in the form of bread and wine. The cannibal kills his victim; Jesus does not die when he is consumed in Communion. Indeed, he is not changed in the slightest; the communicant is the only person who is changed. The cannibal eats part of his victim, whereas in Communion the entire Christ is consumed—body, blood, soul, and divinity. The cannibal sheds the blood of his victim; in Communion our Lord gives himself to us in a non-bloody way."

          The point remains that Catholics allegedly eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ. A cannibal does not cease to qualify fitting under that label just because he eats only part of the victim, has eaten the whole victim, or does so in a different manner. The state of the victim does not change the resemblance of the fundamental act of eating human flesh, which aligns with the broad definition of cannibalism. Furthermore, theological distinctions do not change the physical act of consumption. A more correct answer would be that Catholics are innocent of cannibalism because no such change in the communion elements takes place during the mass. 

          "Second, if it were truly immoral in any sense for Christ to give us his flesh and blood to eat, it would be contrary to his holiness to command anyone to eat his body and blood—even symbolically. Symbolically performing an immoral act would be of its nature immoral."

          The usage of symbolism does not suggest as a logical consequence a literal understanding or act practiced. Jesus Christ is our source of spiritual life. We partake of Him by trusting in His atonement on a continual basis. He is not life to us because we literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. Moreover, how come the writers of the New Testament never clarified that the eucharist was not cannibalism?

          "Moreover, the expressions to eat flesh and to drink blood already carried symbolic meaning both in the Hebrew Old Testament and in the Greek New Testament, which was heavily influenced by Hebrew. In Psalm 27:1-2, Isaiah 9:18-20, Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3, and Revelation 17:6-16, we find these words (eating flesh and drinking blood) understood as symbolic for persecuting or assaulting someone. Jesus’ Jewish audience would never have thought he was saying, “Unless you persecute and assault me, you shall not have life in you.” Jesus never encouraged sin. This may well be another reason why the Jews took Christ at his word."

           Just because a figurative expression has a negative connotation in certain contexts, it does not follow such always has that same meaning or intention in every occurrence. There is nothing ruling out the possibility of more neutral or positive usages of eating flesh or drinking blood in a symbolic sense. For example, Psalm 23:5 uses imagery of a table being prepared before enemies to signify God's provision, even in the midst of adversaries. Psalm 119:103 describes the words of God as "sweeter than honey" to one's mouth, giving praise to God for His wisdom. Further, His metaphor in John 6 was an invitation to be reconciled to God, which is a positive message.

          If transubstantiation is true, then the consecrated elements should taste just like human flesh and blood. However, the communion elements taste just like bread and wine, even after consecration by the parish priest. There is something fundamentally wrong with a proposition which tells us that things are not consistent with the reality of our surroundings. Obviously, Jesus Christ has a better palate for food pairings than we do. Who knew that the Savior was such a gourmet?