No trace of human DNA or Deity DNA found in local eucharist

[MajorMitchell]

What is clear is that if God has DNA then it's a "right handed" helix DNA to be compatible with Human DNA + DNA of all life on our planet, otherwise no divine conception in Mary could be successful.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

What is clear is that if God has DNA then it's a "right handed" helix DNA to be compatible with Human DNA + DNA of all life on our planet, otherwise no divine conception in Mary could be successful.

I think you're missing the point of what a *miracle* is supposed to be. It doesn't need a materialist explanation by definition - it happened miraculously and in a manner that need not conform the humans' extremely limited understanding of how the universe works.

I'm not religious at all. To me the only thing sillier than just accepting an extremely fanciful fiction about virgin birth on faith is trying to graft a materialist explanation onto a story that: (i) almost certainly didn't happen or (ii) even if it happened, was supposedly the work of a being so powerful it would not be bound by any rules whatsoever.

[Jamiet99uk]

^ he's right you know, Ted.

[CaptainFritz28]

The trouble with this whole thread is that we assume that God is on our level. If there is a being that has the power to cause the universe into existence by sheer willpower, then that being can make the laws of how that being interacts in said universe.

Take, for example, a computer program. A programmer does not have to be bound by the rules of the program, and can make those rules whatever they want. If I make a simulation, and put an AI into that simulation, I have full and complete control over it. I may manifest myself into it however I wish, and may perform actions that should be impossible given the rules of that simulation, from without.

We humans are so arrogant that we think that the entity that created the innumerable galaxies of our cosmos, with such intricate detail as DNA and molecular structure in every corner of them, must be restricted to the same laws as us.

Specifically regarding Christian doctrine, the Eucharist is meant as a remembrance of Christ's broken body and spilt blood. Whether one takes it as the literal blood and body of Christ is irrelevant to its significance. Personally, I haven't made up my mind on the matter, but that doesn't have any bearing on my views of the rest of the Bible.

But all of that doesn't matter to this question, because the fact is that Jesus was both fully God and fully man. There is more evidence for Jesus' existence than for any other character of antiquity, and there is more evidence for the resurrection than for any other historical event of antiquity. Even the mere fact that the Disciples were willing to live a life shunned by all, tortured, beaten, and mocked by many, and eventually either exiled or killed for their faith should be a clear indication of the fact that the resurrection was not a made up story. Unlike Islam and many other religions, there is no personal gain, either on Earth or in Heaven, brought about by being tortured or martyred for one's beliefs. The only incentive to do things according to God's commands is because they are inherently good. Salvation is not wrought by works.

The issue brought up in this thread is not one of the religion, but of individual churches. I would like to ask the OP - did you read the passages in the Gospels of the Last Supper, or did you merely base your post off of what you've heard people talk about?

[brian146]

you can cherry pick, but it not a good idea.

[MajorMitchell]

It's easy to misunderstanding my bumbling theological efforts, I will attempt a few clarifications about my crude understanding of Gods & Deities.

All life in our universe, notably us, homo sapiens are inferior physically and intellectually to Gods & Deities.
So I never assume that I'm operating at their level.
Natural forces that we, homo sapiens cannot defy, do not apply to Gods and Deities.
I accept that Jesus Christ lived in Palestine as a man, the best confirmation in my opinion comes from the Roman Emperor Claudius in an encrypted biography that he hid so well, ~1,700 yrs before it was found & deciphered.
Claudius identifies the father of Jesus Christ as Greek soldier serving in Roman army in Palestine.

I accept that a God performed the task of "getting Mary the mother of Jesus pregnant " /divine conception. Mary's mitochondrial half of the DNA helix was that of homo sapiens.
So the other half of the final DNA helix for Jesus the embryonic fetus supplied by a divine God had to match the half helix from Mary, had to be compatible.
The God provided a perfectly matching half helix to bond with the half from Mary.
That's the point at which divine Jesus takes human form, when a completed human DNA helix first exists in Mary's womb in my opinion and I am not an incontrovertible authority.
I am not denying the existence of Jesus Christ.
Whether his father was a God, I think it's foolish to deny the possibility & prefer to accept that it is possible but cannot.

Simpler to accept that a God was the father of Jesus Christ proven by humans, so I make that assumption.

I think it's best to accept the overall proposition in general form, because then I can contemplate a Christian Heaven and it's Christian alternatives and how my soul will be treated when it's released from this mortal breathing World.

There's heaps of Gods and Deities so it'll be an interesting experience meeting them, if there is any conciousness my soul might have of any form when one or more possibly send my soul to wherever it goes.

There's also no point in trying to prove, or disprove that a God was the father of Jesus Christ, that's a rabbit hole of irrelevance in my opinion apart from giving theologians a way to amuse themselves or being a way to learn or practice rhetoric.


I'm aiming for a decent spell in the Christian Purgatory, an eternal afterlife in Heaven is not as appealing to me in comparison with Christian Purgatory where there's anarchy, chaos.

The Christian Heaven is totalitarian, has it's supreme single authority, so whilst it might be perfectly wonderful & always joyous, there's probably not much tolerance of dissidents, they probably don't get in.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

there is more evidence for the resurrection than for any other historical event of antiquity

That can't be right lol

[CaptainFritz28]

there is more evidence for the resurrection than for any other historical event of antiquity

That can't be right lol

Well, consider the fact that we have at least 11 sources from at least 5 different authors, from all over the Mediterranean, of it. Sure, most of them are in the Bible, but that doesn't discount them as evidence. The reason they are in the Bible in the first place is partially because they are evidence. All of those sources are backed up by archeological finds which confirm what we have now and which date the writings to within 50-100 years of the events, all of which is just about the best you can ask for from a historian's standpoint.

And that's just the resurrection. For Jesus existence in the first place there is more, including Roman records of population and crucifixions.

I shouldn't have said more than any other event of antiquity, that is probably a hasty conclusion. But it is true that there is a great deal of evidence, and that that evidence is very plentiful and authentic for something of that time. To my knowledge, what I said is true, but there may be events with more evidence. If so, they are very few and far between.

[CaptainFritz28]

All life in our universe, notably us, homo sapiens are inferior physically and intellectually to Gods & Deities.
So I never assume that I'm operating at their level.
Natural forces that we, homo sapiens cannot defy, do not apply to Gods and Deities.

I agree with this, and I apologize that I misunderstood your meaning here.

There's heaps of Gods and Deities so it'll be an interesting experience meeting them, if there is any conciousness my soul might have of any form when one or more possibly send my soul to wherever it goes.

You have an interesting theological perspective. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but are you implying that all religions' deities and gods do exist? If so, may I ask how you reconcile the fact that many of these require themselves to be the only God (Christianity, Islam) and others pose clearly contradictory explanations of the afterlife (Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism)? I'm legitimately curious what you have to say.

The Christian Heaven is totalitarian, has it's supreme single authority, so whilst it might be perfectly wonderful & always joyous, there's probably not much tolerance of dissidents, they probably don't get in.

The Christian Heaven revolves around God's mercy and justice. Romans 3:23 states that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and Roman's 6:23 states that the wages of sin is death. This is justice; we rebel against God, and we face the consequences. And yet, God's mercy provides a solution. John 3:16, as you may have heard, states that due to God's love for the world, He sent His only Son, Jesus, to die for our sin so that all who believe in His death and resurrection and confess Him as Lord will not perish but have eternal life.

It is totalitarian, yes. Unlike human institutions, however, the totalitarian ruler is perfect in grace, love, and justice.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

there is more evidence for the resurrection than for any other historical event of antiquity

That can't be right lol

Well, consider the fact that we have at least 11 sources from at least 5 different authors, from all over the Mediterranean, of it. Sure, most of them are in the Bible, but that doesn't discount them as evidence. The reason they are in the Bible in the first place is partially because they are evidence. All of those sources are backed up by archeological finds which confirm what we have now and which date the writings to within 50-100 years of the events, all of which is just about the best you can ask for from a historian's standpoint.

And that's just the resurrection. For Jesus existence in the first place there is more, including Roman records of population and crucifixions.

I shouldn't have said more than any other event of antiquity, that is probably a hasty conclusion. But it is true that there is a great deal of evidence, and that that evidence is very plentiful and authentic for something of that time. To my knowledge, what I said is true, but there may be events with more evidence. If so, they are very few and far between.

I've got nothing against someone having faith in the resurrection. I agree that there is credible evidence that Jesus was a real historical person. However, the evidence that he died and came back to life is extremely scant, especially considering the extraordinary claim being made.

The accounts in the Bible, particularly the Gospels, were written by early Christian believers and proselytizers. The biblical accounts were written decades after the purported events, and there are no contemporary external sources from the time of Jesus that corroborate the resurrection.

Moreover, the resurrection is a miraculous event, which lies outside the scope of historical verification and relies on faith-based belief rather than empirical evidence. There is no direct evidence for the specific miracle of Jesus' death and rebirth.

[CaptainFritz28]

That can't be right lol

Well, consider the fact that we have at least 11 sources from at least 5 different authors, from all over the Mediterranean, of it. Sure, most of them are in the Bible, but that doesn't discount them as evidence. The reason they are in the Bible in the first place is partially because they are evidence. All of those sources are backed up by archeological finds which confirm what we have now and which date the writings to within 50-100 years of the events, all of which is just about the best you can ask for from a historian's standpoint.

And that's just the resurrection. For Jesus existence in the first place there is more, including Roman records of population and crucifixions.

I shouldn't have said more than any other event of antiquity, that is probably a hasty conclusion. But it is true that there is a great deal of evidence, and that that evidence is very plentiful and authentic for something of that time. To my knowledge, what I said is true, but there may be events with more evidence. If so, they are very few and far between.

I've got nothing against someone having faith in the resurrection. I agree that there is credible evidence that Jesus was a real historical person. However, the evidence that he died and came back to life is extremely scant, especially considering the extraordinary claim being made.

The accounts in the Bible, particularly the Gospels, were written by early Christian believers and proselytizers. The biblical accounts were written decades after the purported events, and there are no contemporary external sources from the time of Jesus that corroborate the resurrection.

Moreover, the resurrection is a miraculous event, which lies outside the scope of historical verification and relies on faith-based belief rather than empirical evidence. There is no direct evidence for the specific miracle of Jesus' death and rebirth.

Why must we discount the evidence of the resurrection simply because it was written by Christians and is in the Bible? What about that eliminates them from being evidence?

Of course the people who write that down are going to be Christians; if you have evidence for the resurrection, you're going to be a Christian, because you have evidence that Christianity is true. The writers of the Gospels and Epistles didn't have any ulterior personal motive - they were persecuted and martyred for what they wrote. The writers being Christian is no reason to not believe the evidence.

Of course that is going to be in the Bible; part of the purpose of the Bible is to explain the historic events of Christianity. Thus, if something is evidence for the resurrection, of course it will be included. I don't see the importance of "external" sources being included - the Bible is evidence by itself. One must remember that the Bible was not written all at once, but is a collection of writings that each individually stand as evidence. Before the Bible was compiled into a single book, each Gospel and Epistle was a contemporary external source.

Sure, they were written down decades later. That's pretty good, considering the historical evidence we have for other events of that time is often centuries after the event happened. As far as historical evidence goes, these writings were very much contemporary to the event itself.

In the last paragraph you do raise a good point. While there is evidence for it, it does ultimately come down to a measure of faith. So does Athiesm, and every other religion. I believe it requires less blind faith to be a Christian than anything else, including an Athiest, but yes, it does require faith.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Why must we discount the evidence of the resurrection simply because it was written by Christians and is in the Bible? What about that eliminates them from being evidence?

Because people with a faith commitment to believe something regardless of the facts are poor sources for empirical evidence.

Of course the people who write that down are going to be Christians; if you have evidence for the resurrection, you're going to be a Christian, because you have evidence that Christianity is true.

I've been deep underground and saw a burrowing falcon made of tungsten. Three of my buddies saw it too. Of course we're the advocates for underground metal birds - you'd be one too if you'd seen it.

The writers of the Gospels and Epistles didn't have any ulterior personal motive - they were persecuted and martyred for what they wrote. The writers being Christian is no reason to not believe the evidence.

That people were willing to die for a belief is poor evidence that the belief was true. People die for empirically wrong beliefs all the time. Moreover, once people start down the path of being persecuted for their beliefs, they are likely to even more tied to those beliefs regardless of evidence. It makes them less reliable, not more reliable. It also ignores the many other early Christians who no doubt said "nah, I didn't see anything" when interrogated by their persecutors lol. It also ignores the role of faith itself, which genuinely convinces some people "believe this thing that probably didn't happen with all your heart, even if it's not true, and the literal creator of the universe will reward you" - to some people, it's worth risking persecution in case that's an accurate worldview.

Of course that is going to be in the Bible; part of the purpose of the Bible is to explain the historic events of Christianity. Thus, if something is evidence for the resurrection, of course it will be included. I don't see the importance of "external" sources being included - the Bible is evidence by itself. One must remember that the Bible was not written all at once, but is a collection of writings that each individually stand as evidence. Before the Bible was compiled into a single book, each Gospel and Epistle was a contemporary external source.

What you view as strengths here I view as weaknesses. Consider that there are giants and talking snakes. Consider that it was written over decades, by humans, most of whom had no direct connection at all to the events described. The Bible describes many true events, but we only know their truth because they correspond to archeological evidence and other sources.

Sure, they were written down decades later. That's pretty good, considering the historical evidence we have for other events of that time is often centuries after the event happened. As far as historical evidence goes, these writings were very much contemporary to the event itself.

Eye witness testimony of a crime that happened several weeks ago is pretty faulty. Decades later opining about a miraculous one-time even not even seen by some of the authors is pretty much as bad as evidence can get.

In the last paragraph you do raise a good point. While there is evidence for it, it does ultimately come down to a measure of faith. So does Athiesm, and every other religion. I believe it requires less blind faith to be a Christian than anything else, including an Athiest, but yes, it does require faith.

This is kind of tangential. A hardcore athiest is making a truth claim about the non-existence of God they can't back up empirically. A true agnostic needs no faith at all. Someone who believes in something that happened only once and for which there is only poor and self-referential evidence for (i.e., the Resurrection) should probably just make this as a faith claim unless there is some big new finding to corroborate their story.

[MidKnight75]

The OP states that ALL churches...My church would not be at all concerned about the lack of DNA in the Eucharist. I believe that Jesus was speaking metaphorically, as when He stated that He was a "Door" or a "Shepherd" or "the water of life". Transubstantiation is up there with the Immaculate conception and the perpetual virginity of Mary. There's no Biblical evidence for it and there's no need for it.

[CaptainFritz28]

Why must we discount the evidence of the resurrection simply because it was written by Christians and is in the Bible? What about that eliminates them from being evidence?

Because people with a faith commitment to believe something regardless of the facts are poor sources for empirical evidence.

Of course the people who write that down are going to be Christians; if you have evidence for the resurrection, you're going to be a Christian, because you have evidence that Christianity is true.

I've been deep underground and saw a burrowing falcon made of tungsten. Three of my buddies saw it too. Of course we're the advocates for underground metal birds - you'd be one too if you'd seen it.

The writers of the Gospels and Epistles didn't have any ulterior personal motive - they were persecuted and martyred for what they wrote. The writers being Christian is no reason to not believe the evidence.

That people were willing to die for a belief is poor evidence that the belief was true. People die for empirically wrong beliefs all the time. Moreover, once people start down the path of being persecuted for their beliefs, they are likely to even more tied to those beliefs regardless of evidence. It makes them less reliable, not more reliable. It also ignores the many other early Christians who no doubt said "nah, I didn't see anything" when interrogated by their persecutors lol. It also ignores the role of faith itself, which genuinely convinces some people "believe this thing that probably didn't happen with all your heart, even if it's not true, and the literal creator of the universe will reward you" - to some people, it's worth risking persecution in case that's an accurate worldview.

Of course that is going to be in the Bible; part of the purpose of the Bible is to explain the historic events of Christianity. Thus, if something is evidence for the resurrection, of course it will be included. I don't see the importance of "external" sources being included - the Bible is evidence by itself. One must remember that the Bible was not written all at once, but is a collection of writings that each individually stand as evidence. Before the Bible was compiled into a single book, each Gospel and Epistle was a contemporary external source.

What you view as strengths here I view as weaknesses. Consider that there are giants and talking snakes. Consider that it was written over decades, by humans, most of whom had no direct connection at all to the events described. The Bible describes many true events, but we only know their truth because they correspond to archeological evidence and other sources.

Sure, they were written down decades later. That's pretty good, considering the historical evidence we have for other events of that time is often centuries after the event happened. As far as historical evidence goes, these writings were very much contemporary to the event itself.

Eye witness testimony of a crime that happened several weeks ago is pretty faulty. Decades later opining about a miraculous one-time even not even seen by some of the authors is pretty much as bad as evidence can get.

In the last paragraph you do raise a good point. While there is evidence for it, it does ultimately come down to a measure of faith. So does Athiesm, and every other religion. I believe it requires less blind faith to be a Christian than anything else, including an Athiest, but yes, it does require faith.

This is kind of tangential. A hardcore athiest is making a truth claim about the non-existence of God they can't back up empirically. A true agnostic needs no faith at all. Someone who believes in something that happened only once and for which there is only poor and self-referential evidence for (i.e., the Resurrection) should probably just make this as a faith claim unless there is some big new finding to corroborate their story.

I'll respond to this later, as I don't have the time to do so today, but I just wanted to say that I find it funny that every one of these arguments I have heard before numerous times, and each time they have the same flaws.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I'll respond to this later, as I don't have the time to do so today, but I just wanted to say that I find it funny that every one of these arguments I have heard before numerous times, and each time they have the same flaws.

I look forward to your defense of the empirical truth of a thing that probably did not happen and, even if it did happen, is unprovable :)

[JustAGuyNamedWill]

Just came across this thread. There are two options:
A. God is present in the eucharist. However, God is a higher form of existence, and DNA cannot contain the complexity of infinity. No DNA is present
B. God is not present in the Eucharist. No DNA is present.

The Eucharist thus can neither be proof for or against Christianity and or its denominations, like Protestantism.

[DarthPorg36]

I'll respond to this later, as I don't have the time to do so today, but I just wanted to say that I find it funny that every one of these arguments I have heard before numerous times, and each time they have the same flaws.

I look forward to your defense of the empirical truth of a thing that probably did not happen and, even if it did happen, is unprovable :)

I'm obviously butting in to a prolonged ongoing debate that I don't believe I'm entirely qualified to argue in, me being rather young and inexperienced, as well as me not being a theologian or philosopher or anything of the sort. However, in response to Esquire's short comment here, I'd like to say that yes, the Resurrection and Christianity as a whole is probably unprovable with empirical evidence. I'll concede that point. However, I think you're missing the point. The Bible is not a scientific research paper about how Christ rose from the dead (which I firmly believe) and, naturally, does not have a thorough list of academic sources to back it up. It is commonly accepted to have hundreds of witness accounts into the events shortly after the Resurrection, and for ancient times I'll take it. The Bible is God's message of his tremendous love for his people, and his plan to always work for them and be with them, even when they stumble and fall, even when the forsake him and each other and make horrible mistakes. The Bible shows us an alternative way to live - a way of love for each other and for God, modeled off what Jesus said. However, I'm distracting from the point I want to make here.

Suppose you're right. Suppose that Jesus was just a dude and wasn't the son of God at all. Suppose that all the eyewitnesses lied and none of this ever happened, and suppose that God isn't even real at all, and I'm following a foolish outdated belief system. To that I show you a piece of writing that I think sums it up well from CS Lewis, in chapter 12 of The Silver Chair

For some context, this is said by Puddleglum, a character in his book, as him and the other protagonists are facing the Witch of the Underworld, and beginning to lose faith that there is even an Overworld (which they just were in) at all. I think it's not hard to pick up on the allegories in this passage of Underworld = Earth, Overworld/Narnia = Heaven, Aslan = God, etc.

"Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things--trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland."

And I think that sums up the point pretty well - if this is really it, well I'm going to live with the hope of an all-loving God, and an everlasting life with him in Heaven when I pass, because man that sounds so much better than this planet. I firmly believe that God is there and loves us and Jesus rose from the dead, and I have faith in what he's said, and even if it's all false I'm going to live like it's the Truth, because it's the only hope I really have in this world. I don't feel the need for empirical evidence to back up my faith, I already have all the evidence I need.

[CaptainFritz28]

DarthPorg, my respect for you has just increased dramatically. The fact that you not only would defend the Bible (which many would simply be silent on), but also that you would quote my favorite passage of the Chronicles of Narnia (from my second favorite book, I think The Horse and His Boy is a tad bit better), is just great. Lewis found a way to intertwine deep truths with a children's story, and while Tolkien criticized it for being too childish, I think it is much more an incredible work of philosophy and theology than many realize.

Out of curiosity, have you read Lewis' Space Trilogy? I highly recommend it if you haven't.

[DarthPorg36]

Thank you!

I have not read the entire Space Trilogy, but would like to at some point. I read through a large chunk of Perelandra, which had some very interesting insights into the origins of evil, and the philosophy of evil vs free will, innocence, maturity, and quite a bit more.

I do think Chronicles of Narnia are a bit better than what I've read of Perelandra but I would not say that Perelandra is bad by any means.

[CaptainFritz28]

Perelandra is hard to get through. Out of the Silent Planet, being the first, is the easiest to read, but I would say that the best is That Hideous Strength. It can be read alone, but is best read after having read the other two. Needless to say, they are all brilliant, but I think, as you say, that the Chronicles of Narnia are better than most of Perelandra own its own. With the context of the others, Perelandra is quite good.

That Hideous Strength is almost a prediction... it has many parallels to the worldview of culture in the modern day, somewhat like how 1984 (the novel) has many parallels to current trends in society and governmental issues.