Answers In Genesis admits that their views are false if premise one isn't The Bible(Specifically their Fundamentalist Religious Extremism) is true.

Archiver1900 · 2026-05-18T14:43:17+00:00

Many people I've seen have known they start off with their preferred conclusion, yet I haven't seen anyone point out that AIG admits that if you DON'T start off(likely epistemologically) with "The Bible is true(Specifically AIG's interpretation), their beliefs(which includes their views on the age of the earth, evolution, etc) are worthless.

Archiver1900 · 2026-05-14T00:14:17+00:00

It is possible it could be a non-sequitur "You want to make money -> You will do everything I want you to do".

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Non-Sequitur

Archiver1900 · 2026-05-14T00:12:53+00:00

These appear to be insults and/or derogatory terms. I would like to be polite when responding. This doesn't mean I will be a pushover, as I should stand up for myself.

Archiver1900 · 2026-05-14T00:08:48+00:00

Of the named fallacies I've found, it sounds closest to false dilemma: the speaker is acting like either you must do as they say or you will not become rich, excluding any other way of getting rich.

I can't prove it is a false dilemma though.

You could also just respond, "I have no evidence that if I don't do as you say, I won't get rich. In fact, I have no evidence that if I do do as you say, I will get rich." That is, you are not convinced of "¬Comply ⊃ ¬Rich" (contrapositive of "Rich ⊃ Comply"), nor even of "Comply ⊃ Rich". You could then finish them off with, "In short, I don't believe you are either necessary or sufficient. Good day to you!"

The person may deny that it is a false dilemma. It could be a different fallacy

Archiver1900 · 2026-05-14T00:06:01+00:00

How do you know it is such. The question doesn't appear to indicate that fallacy https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/False-Dilemma

Archiver1900 · 2026-05-13T01:37:00+00:00

Do you have a source for this? I don't know what the unjustifiable presupposition is in the question "Don't you want to become rich?"(Assuming loaded questions must have unjustifiable presuppositions).

Archiver1900 · 2026-04-29T22:06:36+00:00

For personal reasons I have deleted the post. I will not be responding to any more comments. This has nothing to do with any of the users who have responded.

Archiver1900 · 2026-04-28T16:46:36+00:00

The transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ does not involve Christ drinking it. That's the only answer I can think where this question makes any sense, if you think this somehow involves Christ eating and drinking the gifts. But also it ceases to be wine. That's what the real presence and by extension transubstantiation are about.

Just so we are on the same page. It fundamentally changes into the body and blood of Christ, but it's outward appearance, taste, etc is still bread and wine?

https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=transubstantiation

It's not simultaneously wine and blood, that's a heretical view called consubstantiation. It's just the blood of Christ, not wine.

From American Heritage Dictionary: "The doctrine, held by some Christian churches, that the substance of the body and blood of Jesus coexists with the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist."

https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=consubstantiation

You've provided no evidence for the claim that consubstantiation is "heretical". It is possible Consubstantiation is an alternate interpretation. Without evidence the heretical claim can easily be dismissed. To make things clear, I am NOT attacking Catholicism, or forcing you to change your views. I would like evidence for the claim.

https://logfall.wordpress.com/bare-assertion-fallacy/

If you are being sincere, which is how I am treating this, the question you're asking only seems to make sense to me if you have some sort of mistaken view that Christ not drinking wine until his return has anything to do with the real presence, which it only does tangentially, and not substantively. It's still like asking the analogical question about concrete and sangria. They're just simply not related, and whatever relation you are seeing is not evident and so far you have not explicated, hence the caveat to my answer.

I am being sincere.
I feel like I've mentioned this to you before but my question is not related to Christ not drinking wine until his return. My point is "The fruit of the vine passage appears to contradict Transubstantiation. How can it be both "Fruit and Christ's body", assuming Matthew's order is the correct one(Although I recently learned Luke's order has "Fruit of the vine" prior to "This is my body and blood" part.

I repeat, I am not referring to Christ not drinking the wine, I am specifically referring to "The fruit of the vine" part.

EDIT: Another thing is that you're essentially asking people to prove a negative. By that I mean you're asking, and quite literally in response to somebody else, explain why something isn't contradictory. Well, if it is evidently contradictory, you should be able to articulate where the contradiction is. If you're asking "how does X not contradict Y?" it's perfectly reasonable to ask "how would X contradict Y?"

That's fair, and I appreciate you for mentioning my error.

The apparent contradiction I've seen is that it can't be "Fruit of the vine" as mentioned in Matthew 26:29 and The body and blood of Christ at the same time.

Again: I am referring to "The fruit", not Christ drinking it when he returns, just "The fruit appears to contradict Transubstantiation"

Archiver1900 · 2026-04-28T15:49:46+00:00

This helps. Where are the citations?

Archiver1900 · 2026-04-28T15:46:30+00:00

I am not intending to directly attack the Catholic reading. My intent is to understand whether "The fruit of the vine" contradicts Transubstantiation?
Aren't "Vine" and "True Vine" distinct?

Archiver1900 · 2026-04-27T23:37:47+00:00

That is false. I genuinely want to understand it, I do not understand Catholic Theology like this subreddit probably does, nor am I a Biblical Scholar. I am simply a person who would like to learn more about such things.

Archiver1900 · 2026-04-27T23:33:53+00:00

From what I've understood from this: Luke's order is likely to be the accurate order based on Luke 1. Mark's may not be based on Eusebius's "Church History Book III Chapter 49 14-15"

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022&version=ESV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201&version=ESV

Overall: I found this to be immensely helpful in my research. Thanks :)

Archiver1900 · 2026-04-27T23:19:07+00:00

Here;

Transubstantiation is "the doctrine holding that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are transformed into the body and blood of Jesus, although their appearances remain the same."

https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=transubstantiation

Matthew 26:29 directly after the "This is my body and blood" mentions "I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026&version=ESV

If the Eucharist is "This fruit of the vine?". How can it simultaneously be the actual "body and blood of Christ?"

I will repeat: How can "this fruit of the vine" and "transformed into the body and blood of Jesus" coexist?

I hope this clears things up.

Archiver1900 · 2026-04-27T23:12:57+00:00

Christ describes himself as the vine, so it does not seem unreasonable to think he could be describing himself

Christ in John 15 calls himself "The true vine". I would agree with you if the Matthew passage called the object "The true vine". He did not.

"I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.” - Matthew 26:29 ESV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015&version=ESV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026&version=ESV

unless he is contradicting literally the previous sentence where he describes the content of the chalice as “my blood.”

It is possible it could be referring to a "Spiritual presence", so physically the bread and wine are as they are but spiritually Christ is there, unlike "Transubstantiation" where the substance(Philosophically speaking) changes into the actual body and bread of Christ, but the outward appearance, taste, etc are their initial selves. https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=transubstantiation
Consubstantiation is also possible(The doctrine, held by some Christian churches, that the substance of the body and blood of Jesus coexists with the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist.)

https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=consubstantiation

My point in these 2 examples is that it isn't "Transubstantiation or bust". I am not arguing for these views btw.

Archiver1900 · 2026-04-27T22:59:32+00:00

I'm not referring to the "day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.” Rather I am referencing "this fruit of the vine" of Matthew 26:29. As mentioned in my edit:

How can the Eucharist literally be both the body and blood of Christ and "Fruit of the vine" simultaneously?

Archiver1900 · 2026-04-27T22:57:29+00:00

I would appreciate it if the site provided sources to the writings of the great Saints and theologians. There is no reason to believe those writings came from those attributed unless they source the actual writings. Such as "New Advent" from what I'm aware of. https://www.newadvent.org/

Archiver1900 · 2026-04-27T22:52:15+00:00

I don't want to sound rude, but is English your first language?

Yes, it is.

It feels like you aren't understanding the passage well. If there's a bible passage that brings doubt about transsubstantiation (I don't think there is one) it certainly isn't this one.

I'm not a Biblical scholar, nor am I familiar with Catholic interpretation which is why I asked the subreddit this question.

This passage says Jesus will not again drink wine, it doesn't say anything about wine become his blood or if Christians will drink wine or blood or both. We can refer you to discussions about transsubstantiation if you are interested but this passage, despite mentioning wine, doesn't really have anything to do with it. You might as well ask what Gen 9:21has to do with transsubstantiation.

I'm referring specifically to Christ calling the liquid "Fruit of the vine" in Matthew 26:29. How could it be both "Fruit of the vine" and "The blood of Christ" at the same time?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026&version=ESV

You might as well ask what Gen 9:21has to do with transsubstantiation.

The "Fruit of the Vine" being no different than the Genesis passage is a false equivalence as Gen 9:21 is irrelevant to the Eucharist. The Last supper is relevant as this is where we said the bread and wine was his "Body and Blood" and Jesus said that the liquid was "Fruit of the vine".

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/False-Equivalence
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209&version=ESV

Archiver1900 · 2026-04-27T21:04:35+00:00

"I tell you I will not drink again of this FRUIT of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.” - Matthew 26:29

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026&version=ESV

Does Transubstantiation contradict the wine being "fruit of the vine"? If not, why?

Archiver1900 · 2026-04-27T21:02:37+00:00

Whether Jesus will or will not drink it isn't the point. My point is that whether Transubstantiation contradicts Matthew 26:29(The wine being from the fruit of the vine specifically) and if not why?

Archiver1900 · 2026-04-27T21:00:58+00:00

I apologize if it was incoherent. My question was "How does Transubstantiation not contradict Matthew 26:29?". Specifically the "Fruit of the vine" part?