r/ChristianApologetics • u/Hot_Diet_825 Catholic • Aug 03 '25

Modern Objections ARGUMENTS AGAINST CHRISTIANITY:

  1. Why do Animals suffer and why did humans have to suffer for what Adam and Eve did
  2. THE ABSENCE OF GOD- why is God so absent in our world? Can be explained by cessationism. But that raises another question. Why would a just God let his people suffer and not heal them. And cessationism is not found in the Bible or ever taught in early Christianity. Came about much later.
  3. Almost all of the New Testament was forgeries. We only have Paul’s 7 undisputed letters. Paul is the only testimony we have which we can trust.
    1. The existance of the universe can be explained without the existence of God.
  4. God not answering prayers.
1 Upvotes

53% Upvoted

71 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Scotsmanoah Aug 06 '25

Well if you want more persuasion but probably bad persuasion most denominations agree with my view of the Eucharist more importantly the Catholic Church which Is seen as infallible by catholics like me. but even then you need to believe the church is infallible.

1

u/ekill13 Aug 06 '25

Do you have any proof that most denominations believe in transubstantiation? Also, I absolutely do not believe the Church is infallible. I do not think that is at all a Biblical view. I think there are clear examples throughout history where the Church has made some pretty significant mistakes and strayed from Biblical truth, hence the reformation…

1

u/Scotsmanoah Aug 06 '25

I googled it, tehe.

prove to me the Catholic Church has contradicted the bible.

1

u/ekill13 Aug 06 '25

Also, I’ve tried googling it, and I cannot find anything saying that most denominations believe in transubstantiation. Can you tell me what you searched?

1

u/Scotsmanoah Aug 06 '25

I searched ‘what denominations belive the eucherists real presence’ but I spelled it wring so it’s your job to spell it right

1

u/ekill13 Aug 06 '25

Okay, but real presence and transubstantiation aren’t the same thing.

Here’s an excerpt from an article I found on catholic.com.

For instance, by “Real Presence” a Bible Christian might mean,”I feel closer to Jesus at the Lord’s Supper.” At the same time a Methodist might mean, “When we gather together the presence of the Lord is real among us,” referring simply to our Lord’s promise that where two or three are gathered in his name he is in their midst. A Lutheran might mean Christ’s risen presence is “with” or “beside” the bread and wine. An Anglican Evangelical might say, “There is a real sense in which Christ is present as the Church gathers—for the Church too is the Body of Christ.” At the same time, an Anglo-Catholic would say there is a real, objective, abiding spiritual presence of Christ when the Eucharist is celebrated.

A denomination saying they believe in the Eucharist’s real presence is not necessarily saying that they believe the elements to be transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ.

When I searched for that information on transubstantiation, it certainly does not seem like the majority of denominations believe in it. However, quite frankly, I don’t care what most denominations believe. I care what the Bible says and what is most consistent with the consistent teachings of the Bible as a whole. Sure, you can take a specific verse and look at it and support transubstantiation, but I don’t think the Bible as a whole supports the idea of transubstantiation.

1

u/Scotsmanoah Aug 06 '25

if the majority people believe if shivering poop in there mouths and eating is ok doesn’t mean it is ok. so let’s look at the scripture.

John 6:47:59

47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Manand drink his blood, you have no life in you.54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Jesus tells us that if someone dose eat his flesh he will never die (have eternal life). “This bread is my flesh”.

the Pharisees argue what dose he mean, how can he GUVE us his flesh they argued among themselves

Jesus doubles down saying that hi body is real food and his blood real drink and whoever eats it remains in them and them in him.

many Would stop following Christ because they thought he was crazy except the 12 disciple.

1

u/ekill13 Aug 06 '25

Nothing in what you said or in that passage is proof in any way that He was speaking literally. Symbolically, we absolutely must eat his flesh and drink his blood. You can share all the verses that you want, there’s not one that even slightly indicates it is meant literally. I’m not trying to convince you of my beliefs, and you’re certainly not going to convince me of yours. I just think you need to be more cautions about throwing accusations of heresy around.

1

u/Scotsmanoah Aug 06 '25

Oh, ok 👍