Jesus is not literally in the bread and wine
- Thread starter balshan
- Start date
dingoling.
Well-known member
We really don't need to show anything, Jesus words are enough.
dingoling.
Well-known member
I did.
- for the nCCs Scripture is their highest authority
- scripture says that the bread and wine are his body and blood
- We believe that it is his body and blood
- the nCCs say that it is symbolic.
- scripture doesn't say that it is symbolic
If we are to appeal to the highest authority then the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ and not symbolic.
There it is.
Yes Jesus symbolic words are enough, so you cannot make any valid defense of your false beliefs and you are incapable of responding to the op. Got It. Nothing more needs to be said. RCs are unable to prove Jesus was speaking literally, all the evidence is for it being symbolic.
The op was clear about not diverting to your false authority. All you are doing is diverting.
dingoling.
Well-known member
What scripture says is pointless?
No we don't.
We do have authority. It is the nCCs who don't have the authority.
No he is not breaking his own word.
Jesus is God. His sacrifice is not subject to time.
So what does this prove?
All these arguments are based on your personal interpretation of scripture.
Once again deliberately misrepresenting my post but typical RC practice when they cannot do proper apologetics.
No you don't what? Meaningless response
You do not have any authority at all. You are just a nobody in the RC clog. It differently has no authority because it is the evil tree. Nonrcs do not require your false authority and deliberately diverting off the op because you are incapable of answering the points raised.
Of course He did not break His word because He was speaking symbolically.
His sacrifice was at one point in time and therefore subject to time. He did events in a linear line. Not some RC circle which does not exist.
It proves you do not understand context and what was happening at the Last Supper.
No they are not, they come from scripture. Your personal interpretation of the false RCC interpretation is just your opinion.
And you cannot respond to them at all, because you have nothing. Just constantly saying you have no authority is a joke and very poor defence. It is a fallacy. Jesus constantly saying Jesus spoke literally when you cannot prove he was is also pointless. You have nothing to support your false claims.
We now have thread after thread after thread of most RCs avoiding and diverting and claim an authority they do not have, attacking others making out they have no authority just opinion. That one just makes me laugh as all they have is there opinion and their inability to respond to the most simple questions. They cannot defend their false claims/beliefs as Peter said a true believer should.
You really do need to show He is speaking literally and not symbolically for you belief to have a leg to stand on. But you cannot.
dingoling.
Well-known member
Why do we need to show he is not speaking figuratively?
1Thess521
Well-known member
I asked YOU
"I asked you if it is a requirement for scripture to say a verse is figurative"
YOUR claim
It is for those whose highest authority is scripture
Now prove it
Back up your claim
Prove that that those whose highest authority is scripture require figurative verses to be labeled as such.
We are waiting
]]]]
10. Personal interpretation
Catholic apologists will keep asking for Scriptural proof.
Then when given;
the proof is ignored or insist its one's personal interpretation.
Yet a double standard exists. They use their own
personal interpretation to reject God's Word and instead accept
Catholic teachings as gospel.
as ding has said
Yea; hath God said
10. Personal interpretation
Catholic apologists will keep asking for Scriptural proof.
Then when given;
the proof is ignored or insist its one's personal interpretation.
Yet a double standard exists. They use their own
personal interpretation to reject God's Word and instead accept
Catholic teachings as gospel.
as ding has said
Yea; hath God said
dingoling.
Well-known member
I just did.
dingoling.
Well-known member
Yes God has said, "...this is my body...this is my blood of the covenant..."
To show that your belief is correct for a start, that should be obvious.
Figuratively. Try responding to the op with some evidence.
Wishful thinking on your part.
dingoling. said:
Why do we need to show he is not speaking figuratively?
=================end ding reply
So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly,
and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.
...
And all the people went their way to eat, and to drink,
and to send portions, and to make great mirth,
because they had understood the words that were declared unto them.
Last edited:
1Thess521
Well-known member
sure us where this happened
post # please
1Thess521
Well-known member
When a passage can be interpreted in different ways: (i.e. figurative of literal)
the interpretation that contradicts other Scriptures; must be in error.
----------------
The New Covenant
When did the new covenant go into effect? Take a swing! What is you answer?
Hebrews 9:
15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, (diathéké) so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a will (diathéké) is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.17For a will (diathéké) takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive."
----------------------
forgiveness of sin.
When was the penalty of sins paid for? Take a swing: What is you answer?
1 Corinthians 15:3
Christ died for our sins, according to Scriptures
1 Peter 3:18
Christ died for sins, once for all”
Hebrews 9:15
15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant
Isaiah 53:
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors
------------------
Propitiation (the appeasement of God’s wrath)
When was the propitiation made? Take a swing! What is you answer?
Romans 5:7-9
7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
Colossians 1:21-22
And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach—
dingoling.
Well-known member
Well that is what it says in Hebrews 9, death must take place. So Jesus could not have forgiven sins until after his death?