# What do y'all make of these "Eucharistic miracles" associated with the Catholic Church



## Anglicanorthodoxy

What do y'all make of these claims that bread/hosts used in Catholic communion have sometimes turned into human flesh? Here's an article 
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news...iracles-confirm-real-presence-of-Jesus-Christ
They call them "Eucharistic miracles." Catholics say that this proves the Christ lives in the Eucharist. I'm very skeptical of this sort of thing, and I don't understand why they make such wacky claims.


----------



## Pilgrim

I think many respond similarly to how they respond to the "miracles" at Benny Hinn crusades.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## arapahoepark

Maybe a priest cut off his finger....reminds me of that Wendy's chili fiasco. I guess miracles are in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## RamistThomist

Anglicanorthodoxy said:


> What do y'all make of these claims that bread/hosts used in Catholic communion have sometimes turned into human flesh? Here's an article
> https://www.churchmilitant.com/news...iracles-confirm-real-presence-of-Jesus-Christ
> They call them "Eucharistic miracles." Catholics say that this proves the Christ lives in the Eucharist. I'm very skeptical of this sort of thing, and I don't understand why they make such wacky claims.



Miracles are usually good things. I'd be creeped out if human flesh (independent of a body?) appeared before me.


----------



## TylerRay

II Thessalonians 2:3-10:


> Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: *Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.*

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

Anglicanorthodoxy said:


> What do y'all make of these claims that bread/hosts used in Catholic communion have sometimes turned into human flesh? Here's an article
> https://www.churchmilitant.com/news...iracles-confirm-real-presence-of-Jesus-Christ
> They call them "Eucharistic miracles." Catholics say that this proves the Christ lives in the Eucharist. I'm very skeptical of this sort of thing, and I don't understand why they make such wacky claims.


I would tend to view them in same vein as the ones at fatima, as either satanic, or just blind faith.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## dudley

I am an ex Roman catholic as many know. I have been a Presbyterian, a reformed protestant for many years now. Regarding the Lords Supper I now believe the Roman Catholic teaching of transubstantiation is repugnant to the true nature of the sacrament of the Lords Supper as is the ritualistic Roman Catholic mass! It has also led to so many superstitious practices. One is the belief in Eucharistic miracles. “Eucharistic miracles,” plus many, many others, have nothing whatsoever to do with salvation, or with the spreading of the gospel. When we assess each one and let the light of Scripture shine upon it, it becomes evident that none of them are beneficial to the body of Christ, but are either demonically-inspired tricks to confuse and seduce people into believing something that is false, or are just flatly untrue stories that have been made up by those who put stumbling blocks in the path of those who might be seeking after the true God of the Bible.

Just because the name of Jesus Christ is invoked does not mean that the person or persons “worshipping” as hosted in a piece of bread is repugnant to the true nature of the Lords Supper not are they focusing on the true Jesus, nor does it mean they even know Him. Jesus is not brought down from heaven to enter into a piece of bread, as the Catholic Church claims. Such an idea has no basis in Scripture and, in fact, is flatly contradicted.

I believe as a Presbyterian Christ’s presence in the Supper but as spiritual for the supper is spiritual food for the soul

I believe as Calvin taught is spiritual food for the soul, not carnal food for the body. According to Calvin the sacraments are signs. The signs and the things signified must be distinguished without being separated. Calvin rejects the idea that the sacramental signs are merely symbols (for example, what Zwingli taught). But he also rejects the idea that the signs are transformed into the things they signify, transubstantiation taught by the Roman catholic church.. Calvin argues that when Christ uses the words, “This is my body,” the name of the thing signified (“body”) is applied to the sign (the bread).

Calvin repeatedly stated that his argument with the Roman Catholics and with Luther was not over the fact of Christ’s presence, but only over the mode of that presence. According to Calvin, Christ’s human body is locally present in heaven, but it does not have to descend in order for believers to truly partake of it because the Holy Spirit effects communion. The Holy Spirit is the bond of the believer’s union with Christ. Therefore that which the minister does on the earthly plane, the Holy Spirit accomplishes on the spiritual plane. In other words, those who partake of the bread and wine in faith are also, by the power of the Holy Spirit, being nourished by the body and blood of Christ.

Supposed “eucharistic miracles” are often pointed to by Roman Catholics as evidence for the “real presence” and/or transubstantiation in the Eucharist. Most of the claimed eucharistic miracles involved one or both of the elements miraculously being turned into literal blood or literal human flesh, that is repugnant superstitious non sense.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

dudley said:


> I am an ex Roman catholic as many know. I have been a Presbyterian, a reformed protestant for many years now. Regarding the Lords Supper I now believe the Roman Catholic teaching of transubstantiation is repugnant to the true nature of the sacrament of the Lords Supper as is the ritualistic Roman Catholic mass! It has also led to so many superstitious practices. One is the belief in Eucharistic miracles. “Eucharistic miracles,” plus many, many others, have nothing whatsoever to do with salvation, or with the spreading of the gospel. When we assess each one and let the light of Scripture shine upon it, it becomes evident that none of them are beneficial to the body of Christ, but are either demonically-inspired tricks to confuse and seduce people into believing something that is false, or are just flatly untrue stories that have been made up by those who put stumbling blocks in the path of those who might be seeking after the true God of the Bible.
> 
> Just because the name of Jesus Christ is invoked does not mean that the person or persons “worshipping” as hosted in a piece of bread is repugnant to the true nature of the Lords Supper not are they focusing on the true Jesus, nor does it mean they even know Him. Jesus is not brought down from heaven to enter into a piece of bread, as the Catholic Church claims. Such an idea has no basis in Scripture and, in fact, is flatly contradicted.
> 
> I believe as a Presbyterian Christ’s presence in the Supper but as spiritual for the supper is spiritual food for the soul
> 
> I believe as Calvin taught is spiritual food for the soul, not carnal food for the body. According to Calvin the sacraments are signs. The signs and the things signified must be distinguished without being separated. Calvin rejects the idea that the sacramental signs are merely symbols (for example, what Zwingli taught). But he also rejects the idea that the signs are transformed into the things they signify, transubstantiation taught by the Roman catholic church.. Calvin argues that when Christ uses the words, “This is my body,” the name of the thing signified (“body”) is applied to the sign (the bread).
> 
> Calvin repeatedly stated that his argument with the Roman Catholics and with Luther was not over the fact of Christ’s presence, but only over the mode of that presence. According to Calvin, Christ’s human body is locally present in heaven, but it does not have to descend in order for believers to truly partake of it because the Holy Spirit effects communion. The Holy Spirit is the bond of the believer’s union with Christ. Therefore that which the minister does on the earthly plane, the Holy Spirit accomplishes on the spiritual plane. In other words, those who partake of the bread and wine in faith are also, by the power of the Holy Spirit, being nourished by the body and blood of Christ.
> 
> Supposed “eucharistic miracles” are often pointed to by Roman Catholics as evidence for the “real presence” and/or transubstantiation in the Eucharist. Most of the claimed eucharistic miracles involved one or both of the elements miraculously being turned into literal blood or literal human flesh, that is repugnant superstitious non sense.


The Lord would not be doing any kind of miracles such as that in the mass, as that would be Him testifying to the truth of the sacrament and of the theology of the Church of Rome, which would not be possible, as it holds to another false Gospel.


----------



## Herald

Anglicanorthodoxy said:


> What do y'all make of these claims that bread/hosts used in Catholic communion have sometimes turned into human flesh? Here's an article
> https://www.churchmilitant.com/news...iracles-confirm-real-presence-of-Jesus-Christ
> They call them "Eucharistic miracles." Catholics say that this proves the Christ lives in the Eucharist. I'm very skeptical of this sort of thing, and I don't understand why they make such wacky claims.


Khater,

Simply put, Transubstantiation (the view that the bread turns into Christ's body, and the wine into Christ's blood) is unscriptural. 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 makes it clear that the Lord Jesus Christ considered the Lord's Supper as a remembrance:

*1 Corinthians 11:24-25* 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way _He took_ the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink _it_, in remembrance of Me.”

The sacrifice that Christ offered on the Cross was a once-for-all-time sacrifice, making "Eucharistic miracles" unnecessary, as well as injurious to those partaking of such a ceremony. Any attempt to offer up Christ as a sacrifice again is a refutation of scripture:

*Hebrews 10:11-14* 11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13 waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Herald said:


> Khater,
> 
> Simply put, Transubstantiation (the view that the bread turns into Christ's body, and the wine into Christ's blood) is unscriptural. 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 makes it clear that the Lord Jesus Christ considered the Lord's Supper as a remembrance:
> 
> *1 Corinthians 11:24-25* 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way _He took_ the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink _it_, in remembrance of Me.”
> 
> The sacrifice that Christ offered on the Cross was a once-for-all-time sacrifice, making "Eucharistic miracles" unnecessary, as well as injurious to those partaking of such a ceremony. Any attempt to offer up Christ as a sacrifice again is a refutation of scripture:
> 
> *Hebrews 10:11-14* 11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13 waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.


The Church of Rome claims that the mass is not re sacrificing Jesus each time that it is taken, but how could it be anything else though? And their sacramental grace system really does trample the blood of the Son of God who died for our sins, as they are denying that Jesus paid the full price needed to save us.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

I think the post-V2 guys say they are re-presenting. Not sure how that escapes the difficulty.


----------



## ZackF

I use to be into these "miracles" in my RC days. Sad. A few questions to ourselves ought to put this to rest. Do they make sense? Is turning bread into a hunk of meat consistent with the New Testament record? Should we pray for that to happen? 

Junk that stuff and move on as I wish I would have many years earlier. Christ is at the right hand of the Father interceding for His people and not about the world bleeding in small random chunks.


----------



## RamistThomist

Let's assume for the moment that something supernatural happened. What of it? A "miracle" and the interpretation of what it means aren't always the same thing. Further, what would a chunk of flesh look like? Which part of the human body is the chunk of flesh from?


----------



## earl40

ReformedReidian said:


> Let's assume for the moment that something supernatural happened. What of it?



It would mean that God did something.


----------



## RamistThomist

earl40 said:


> It would mean that God did something.



But even then that doesn't say much. As Vos taught us, Revelation interprets redemption.

God did something. 
or God allowed Satan to do something.
or (most likely) God sent a deluding spirit to them.


----------



## earl40

ReformedReidian said:


> But even then that doesn't say much. As Vos taught us, Revelation interprets redemption.
> 
> God did something.
> or God allowed Satan to do something.
> or (most likely) God sent a deluding spirit to them.



I agree in that I believe scripture teaches miracles have ceased....completely. Also I do not believe Satan can perform miracles the way Jesus or the apostles did. Nicodemus theology was spot on here  

2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.


----------



## arapahoepark

earl40 said:


> I agree in that I believe scripture teaches miracles have ceased....completely. Also I do not believe Satan can perform miracles the way Jesus or the apostles did. Nicodemus theology was spot on here
> 
> 2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.


I have heard that you and Rev. Winzer had some interesting views on such things. Would you mind explaining more perhaps? I have not kept up, regrettably. Also do define miracle. I was just about to ask Rev. Winzer and then he left 
Thanks!


----------



## RamistThomist

earl40 said:


> I agree in that I believe scripture teaches miracles have ceased....completely. Also I do not believe Satan can perform miracles the way Jesus or the apostles did. Nicodemus theology was spot on here
> 
> 2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.



I don't believe miracles ceased, but I also believe miracles have a specific theological term, which content I don't impute to these strange happenings at Rome.

I don't think Nicodemus is infallible at this point. And in any case, God says he will give a strong delusion to unbelievers in the last time. It's God doing it, but I hesitate to say "God is with them" in the redemptive sense.


----------



## RamistThomist

arapahoepark said:


> I have heard that you and Rev. Winzer had some interesting views on such things. Would you ind explaining more perhaps? I have not kept up, regrettably. Also do define miracle. I was jjst about to ask Rev. Winzer and then he left
> Thanks!



Defining "miracle" is key. He is defining miracle in such a way that it is positive theologically and can't happen anymore. I don't define miracle that way (and I don't think many do). Long story short, these aren't "miracles" in the sense that the term is being used. If someone wants to insist that miracle means supernatural, well, there is no reason for me to continue arguing the point.

Ironically, Rome actually has pretty strict standards on what counts as a "miracle" (most don't make it).


----------



## earl40

arapahoepark said:


> I have heard that you and Rev. Winzer had some interesting views on such things. Would you mind explaining more perhaps? I have not kept up, regrettably. Also do define miracle. I was just about to ask Rev. Winzer and then he left
> Thanks!



I would define a miracle as a supernatural act of God which can be done directly by Him, or done by Him through other people.

This is why I answered Jacob the way I did concerning Rome and their claim of false miracles. Also as I said earlier Nicodemus was "spot on" because the miracles performed by Jesus and the apostles attested that God was indeed with them.


----------



## earl40

arapahoepark said:


> I was just about to ask Rev. Winzer and then he left



Sad to say it would take a "miracle" for Rev. Winzer to come back.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

earl40 said:


> Sad to say it would take a "miracle" for Rev. Winzer to come back.



Well done.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

A comment from the article: "I'm getting a little sick of trying to track down the sources of this story, which has been repeated for years. If DNA comparison has been done and a match confirmed it is, bar none, the most significant discovery in the history of science. So why can't we get a link to a paper in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal? Where are the published methods and results? Where are the micrographs we can all review? This kind of thing can't be handled by dilettantes and credulous journalists. Matching DNA between eucharistic miracles is (if you'll pardon the metaphor) the Holy Grail. It's game, set, and match in debates with so-called skeptics. To merely make these claims without precisely detailing their sources, the provenance of samples, methodology, etc. risks scandal, because we'd be perpetuating falsehoods that would discredit the Church and make all Catholics look foolish."

I think it's pretty safe to call hoax on all such claims.


----------



## Rich Koster

TylerRay said:


> II Thessalonians 2:3-10:



Tyler, you beat me to it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Jeri Tanner said:


> A comment from the article: "I'm getting a little sick of trying to track down the sources of this story, which has been repeated for years. If DNA comparison has been done and a match confirmed it is, bar none, the most significant discovery in the history of science. So why can't we get a link to a paper in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal? Where are the published methods and results? Where are the micrographs we can all review? This kind of thing can't be handled by dilettantes and credulous journalists. Matching DNA between eucharistic miracles is (if you'll pardon the metaphor) the Holy Grail. It's game, set, and match in debates with so-called skeptics. To merely make these claims without precisely detailing their sources, the provenance of samples, methodology, etc. risks scandal, because we'd be perpetuating falsehoods that would discredit the Church and make all Catholics look foolish."
> 
> I think it's pretty safe to call hoax on all such claims.


The "chance" of there having been real miracles performed would be about the same as all of those so called healings in services done by those like a Benny Hinn.


----------



## dudley

Dachaser said:


> The Lord would not be doing any kind of miracles such as that in the mass, as that would be Him testifying to the truth of the sacrament and of the theology of the Church of Rome, which would not be possible, as it holds to another false Gospel.



Amen, I agree with you completely!


----------



## TylerRay

For those who doubt that such "miracles" could be done in the context of a false religion, how do you explain the coming of the Man of Sin and Son of Perdition being "after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders?"

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## earl40

TylerRay said:


> For those who doubt that such "miracles" could be done in the context of a false religion, how do you explain the coming of the Man of Sin and Son of Perdition being "after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders?"



So I take it you believe supernatural acts can be done by people who God is not with?


----------



## RamistThomist

earl40 said:


> So I take it you believe supernatural acts can be done by people who God is not with?



Doctrine of Providence. God allows stuff to happen. The "supernatural" isn't a force independent of God.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay

earl40 said:


> So I take it you believe supernatural acts can be done by people who God is not with?


You'll have to define supernatural. Are demons supernatural beings?


----------



## RamistThomist

TylerRay said:


> You'll have to define supernatural. Are demons supernatural beings?



Take it a step further: what is natural? A lot of conservatives agree with Hume on what constitutes natural (and no violations of it, mind you). 

When we talk about "nature," do we have in mind the Newtonian mechanistic worldview or the take of Einstein, Heisenberg, etc.?


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> For those who doubt that such "miracles" could be done in the context of a false religion, how do you explain the coming of the Man of Sin and Son of Perdition being "after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders?"


O would agree that the Devil can do "false miracles", and can do deceiving acts in the occult, but that there would not be any Miracles being done in the Church of Rome that would be the same class as done by Jesus and his Apostles, as the Holy Spirit cannot condone false theology and a false Gospel message.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Doctrine of Providence. God allows stuff to happen. The "supernatural" isn't a force independent of God.


Supernatural beings, such as Angels and Demons do exist and operate on different levels of reality than us in flesh and blood bodies though.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Supernatural beings, such as Angels and Demons do exist and operate on different levels of reality than us in flesh and blood bodies though.



That's not what I am saying (though I agree with the proposition). The supernatural doesn't exist independent of God's will.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> That's not what I am saying (though I agree with the proposition). The supernatural doesn't exist independent of God's will.


Yes, as even when and if Satan or demons do anything, still has to be allowed by God period.


----------



## earl40

ReformedReidian said:


> Doctrine of Providence. God allows stuff to happen. The "supernatural" isn't a force independent of God.


 So for instance are you suggesting these supernatural beings can and move natural objects around naturally that we can see, and are sent by God to do such?


----------



## earl40

TylerRay said:


> You'll have to define supernatural. Are demons supernatural beings?



Satan is a beings who is active though the only thing we see is the result of the work he has done in the garden in my opinion. So I can say with no qualification that because of the fall that I am responsible %100 for all of my sin as James says specifically.....
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed".....To think satan sits on a persons shoulder like some kind of imp whispering in their ear is simply superstitious.


----------



## RamistThomist

earl40 said:


> So for instance are you suggesting these supernatural beings can and move natural objects around naturally that we can see, and are sent by God to do such?



God can cause people to experience a delusion, yes. He also sent "supernatural beings" to delude others.


----------



## RamistThomist

0 The Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said this while another said that. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’ 22 The Lord said to him, ‘How?’ And he said, ‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then He said, ‘You are to entice _him_ and also prevail. Go and do so.’ 23 Now therefore, behold, the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the Lord has proclaimed disaster against you.”

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40

ReformedReidian said:


> 0 The Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said this while another said that. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’ 22 The Lord said to him, ‘How?’ And he said, ‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then He said, ‘You are to entice _him_ and also prevail. Go and do so.’ 23 Now therefore, behold, the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the Lord has proclaimed disaster against you.”



So we have a deceiving spirit somehow causing a prophet directly to speak? How exactly does this happen? Mind manipulation, whispering a suggestion into the ear, or some other way? I ask because I am curious how exactly this happens in your opinion.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

(Deu 13:1) If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
(Deu 13:2) And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
(Deu 13:3) Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
(Deu 13:4) Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
(Deu 13:5) And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
(Deu 13:6) If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
(Deu 13:7) Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
(Deu 13:8) Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:


----------



## RamistThomist

earl40 said:


> So we have a deceiving spirit somehow causing a prophet directly to speak? How exactly does this happen? Mind manipulation, whispering a suggestion into the ear, or some other way? I ask because I am curious how exactly this happens in your opinion.



Yahweh didn't go into detail.


----------



## earl40

ReformedReidian said:


> Yahweh didn't go into detail.



Oh I agree.  Though if one attempts to answering my questions I asked one would see the folly in thinking in a superstitious manner. (edit)


----------



## RamistThomist

earl40 said:


> Oh I agree.  Though if one attempts to answering my questions I asked one would see the folly in thinking in superstitious a manner.



I was simply referencing the Bible. I hope that isn't superstitious. For the record I think the OP is a hoax. Folk Catholicism is superstitious..


----------



## TylerRay

Earl, how do you explain the acts done by Pharaoh's magicians, such as turning staves into snakes, or turning waters into blood (Ex. 7)?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40

TylerRay said:


> Earl, how do you explain the acts done by Pharaoh's magicians, such as turning staves into snakes, or turning waters into blood (Ex. 7)?



Have you ever seen Penn and Teller?


----------



## TylerRay

earl40 said:


> Have you ever seen Penn and Teller?


No, sir, but I've read the Bible:
Exdodus 7 & 8:


> 10 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the Lord had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent.
> 
> 11 Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.
> 
> 12 For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.





> 19 And the Lord spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and stretch out thine hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon their streams, upon their rivers, and upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of water, that they may become blood; and that there may be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood, and in vessels of stone.
> 
> 20 And Moses and Aaron did so, as the Lord commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood.
> 
> 21 And the fish that was in the river died; and the river stank, and the Egyptians could not drink of the water of the river; and there was blood throughout all the land of Egypt.
> 
> 22 And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the Lord had said.





> 5 And the Lord spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Stretch forth thine hand with thy rod over the streams, over the rivers, and over the ponds, and cause frogs to come up upon the land of Egypt.
> 
> 6 And Aaron stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt; and the frogs came up, and covered the land of Egypt.
> 
> 7 And the magicians did so with their enchantments, and brought up frogs upon the land of Egypt.


----------



## earl40

ReformedReidian said:


> I was simply referencing the Bible. I hope that isn't superstitious. For the record I think the OP is a hoax. Folk Catholicism is superstitious..



I understand, though I doubt we agree on the mode in how God put words into the false prophets mouths. Not to say I know but what I do hold to rather dogmatically is that it was not by a small devil sitting on the shoulder or any type of whispering suggestion into the ear or mind.


----------



## RamistThomist

earl40 said:


> dogmatically is that it was not by a small devil sitting on the shoulder or any type of whispering suggestion into the ear or mind



I'm fairly certain no one here holds that view, though Jesus does use that language from time to time (Satan entered your heart, etc)


----------



## earl40

TylerRay said:


> No, sir, but I've read the Bible:
> Exdodus 7 & 8:



Just to let you to know I have read this many times.  We simply disagree in what kind of power satan has along with his angels, which includes humans.


----------



## earl40

ReformedReidian said:


> I'm fairly certain no one here holds that view, though Jesus does use that language from time to time (Satan entered your heart, etc)



I wish you were correct but I strongly suspect many think satan literally whispers or plants suggestion into peoples minds.


----------



## TylerRay

earl40 said:


> Just to let you to know I have read this many times.  We simply disagree in what kind of power Satan has along with his angels, which includes humans.


Calvin on 2 Thessalonians 2:


> He gives the name of miracles of falsehood, not merely to such as are falsely and deceptively contrived by cunning men with a view to impose upon the simple -- a kind of deception with which all Papacy abounds, for they are a part of his power which he has previously touched upon; but takes falsehood as consisting in this, that Satan draws to a contrary end works which otherwise are truly works of God, and abuses miracles so as to obscure God's glory. *In the mean time, however, there can be no doubt, that he deceives by means of enchantments--an example of which we have in Pharaoh's magicians.*



On Exodus 7 & 8:


> [Paul] says, indeed, that the coming of Antichrist shall be with signs and lying wonders, but by adding the word "power," he shews that the deception or illusion shall not consist so much in the external form of things, as in the perverse abuse of signs. Therefore Christ absolutely pronounces that "false prophets shall shew great signs and wonders." (Matthew 24:24.) It might be, then, that God in just vengeance might choose the rods of the magicians to be changed into serpents; as we shall hereafter see that the waters were changed by their enchantments into blood, that the earth was covered with frogs and lice, that the fields were smitten with hail, and the atmosphere darkened. [82] Still we must be assured, that not even a fly can be created except by God only; but that Satan lays hold, for the purpose of his impostures, of things which are done by the secret judgment of God.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40

TylerRay said:


> Calvin on 2 Thessalonians 2:He gives the name of miracles of falsehood, not merely to such as are falsely and deceptively contrived by cunning men with a view to impose upon the simple -- a kind of deception with which all Papacy abounds, for they are a part of his power which he has previously touched upon; but takes falsehood as consisting in this, that Satan draws to a contrary end works which otherwise are truly works of God, and abuses miracles so as to obscure God's glory. *In the mean time, however, there can be no doubt, that he deceives by means of enchantments--an example of which we have in Pharaoh's magicians.*



Oh I agree Pharaoh's magicians deceived many into thinking they could duplicate what God did. Be not be "enhanced" into thinking such.


----------



## RamistThomist

earl40 said:


> Oh I agree Pharaoh's magicians deceived many into thinking they could duplicate what God did. Be not be "enhanced" into thinking such.



So was it just sleight of hand? Did they pull a cobra out of their robe? That's not how the narrative reads.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I think the mechanism of those majicks (be it natural, or supernatural) is deliberately left in the shadows. It is arcane, and forbidden. Part of what we are called to draw back from (religiously, I mean; fooling the eye for entertainment is innocuous) is vain curiosity.

I'm content to know that Satan was on the side of the Egyptians; and whether they trick to deceive (Is.25:11) or rely on a preternatural supply (a promise to the conjuror that eventually proves deceitful to him), the business is lying and from the darkness.


----------



## earl40

ReformedReidian said:


> So was it just sleight of hand? Did they pull a cobra out of their robe? That's not how the narrative reads.



I hear you and understand what you are saying. That is exactly how many read such and assume that they (the magicians) can do what God does.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> So was it just sleight of hand? Did they pull a cobra out of their robe? That's not how the narrative reads.


God did a miracle, God allowed satan to do one, as the snake from God ate the ones from satan.


----------



## Dachaser

earl40 said:


> Oh I agree Pharaoh's magicians deceived many into thinking they could duplicate what God did. Be not be "enhanced" into thinking such.


The text though seems to indicate that the magicians did use power of Satan, magic, to do something in a real physical sense.


----------



## Dachaser

earl40 said:


> Just to let you to know I have read this many times.  We simply disagree in what kind of power Satan has along with his angels, which includes humans.


Satan still wields that great power bestowed upon Him by God at his creation though.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> God did a miracle, God allowed Satan to do one, as the snake from God ate the ones from Satan.



Right. I was trying to elicit that response from Earl.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Right. I was trying to elicit that response from Earl.


He does not seem to agree though that satan has any real powers in and of Himself.


----------



## earl40

Dachaser said:


> God did a miracle, God allowed Satan to do one, as the snake from God ate the ones from Satan.



As referenced before Nicodemus had belter theology than many today. He was completely orthodox in thinking that ONLY one from God can perform the type of supernatural things that can only be done outside of ones nature, and that being as a person God works through. In other words, satan and his angels cannot create something out of nothing, and Our Lord is a jealous God Who guards His being as the ONE true Creator. 

Also true signs and wonders (miracles) Jesus said to believe in, even if one did not believe in Him. This in of itself should lead one to understand that true signs and wonders can only be done by God directly or indirectly by Him alone.


----------



## earl40

Dachaser said:


> He does not seem to agree though that Satan has any real powers in and of Himself.



I will categorically state that satan does indeed have real powers, but I limit those powers to what only a creature can do.  

PS. Is there any way to get the capitol S out of satan?


----------



## Dachaser

earl40 said:


> As referenced before Nicodemus had belter theology than many today. He was completely orthodox in thinking that ONLY one from God can perform the type of supernatural things that can only be done outside of ones nature, and that being as a person God works through. In other words, Satan and his angels cannot create something out of nothing, and Our Lord is a jealous God Who guards His being as the ONE true Creator.
> 
> Also true signs and wonders (miracles) Jesus said to believe in, even if one did not believe in Him. This in of itself should lead one to understand that true signs and wonders can only be done by God directly or indirectly by Him alone.


The Devil has inherit within himself though some degree of power, as he was the greatest of the creation of God, and is still a supernatural creature.


----------



## Dachaser

earl40 said:


> I will categorically state that Satan does indeed have real powers, but I limit those powers to what only a creature can do.
> 
> PS. Is there any way to get the capitol S out of Satan?


we agree on that aspect of his power, as whatever he still has is always under the reigning in of God.


----------

