What are you talking about? The Passover did not have manna, but they did eat unleaven bread. Please show the verse which states every Passover manna falls from heaven? You are not making sense.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What is the salvific effect of the Last Supper?
- Thread starter 1Thess521
- Start date
dingoling.
Well-known member
The Eucharist is the sacrifice, the Passover meal and the manna of the NC.What are you talking about? The Passover did not have manna, but they did eat unleaven bread. Please show the verse which states every Passover manna falls from heaven? You are not making sense.
No it is you who is failing to completely understand scripture. If we follow your thinking Jesus is a literal door, Herod is a real fox and Peter is Satan. I mean that is what scripture says and it never says they are symbolic or figurative at all. You have to be consistent.If is not a metaphor. You are not completely understanding scripture.
You need to spit out what you are trying to say. How do you sacrifice a piece of bread, is that when you burn it? Your Eucharist was not at the Passover meal, I mean really this makes no sense at all.The Eucharist is the sacrifice, the Passover meal and the manna of the NC.
dingoling.
Well-known member
Matthew 17:5, "While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud a voice said, ‘This is my Son, the Beloved;* with him I am well pleased; listen to him!’"No it is you who is failing to completely understand scripture. If we follow your thinking Jesus is a literal door, Herod is a real fox and Peter is Satan. I mean that is what scripture says and it never says they are symbolic or figurative at all. You have to be consistent.
Is God speaking figuratively? Does God really have a son? How can Jesus really be God's son?
why not 'walk the talk'?As I have said many times before, you will never be able to defend the lies and far fetched doctrines of your accursed religion, using the bible. The Bible refutes your religion at every turn. Your misunderstanding of God's word is useless! You will never fit scripture to agree with your religion. Impossible!
refute what i said is wrong. thanks.
ok, so it is cannibalism that you are accusing us just like the early christian martyrs who were charged by cannibalism by the romans. sorry to say that in cannibalism, the victim is killed before parts of it are eaten up but in communion, Jesus does not die and under the appearance of bread and wine is wholly consumed. in cannibalism, there is shedding of blood but in communion, Jesus gave himself to us in an unbloody manner. if eating flesh and drinking blood is truly immoral in any sense, it will be contrary to the holiness of Jesus to command the apostles to do an immoral act. see the logic? sorry to say that your cannibalism charge does not hold water.Yep according to Ram people are just food, as is their blood. Good to know and I will not follow your teachigns. They are wrong. When did Jesus say people could be eaten as food?
Just because Pilate declared something doesn't make him right.
I didn't say I didn't understand the term, it had nothing to do with the discussion, it was you diverting.
another thing you should know is that, during those times 'eathing flesh and drinking blood' is symbolic of 'persecuting and assaulting' someone. could this be what Jesus meant when he said those words? that is for you to research and find out.
Still waiting for you to spit out what you are trying to say. I mean Jesus did not say He was speaking literally about the bread and wine passage.Matthew 17:5, "While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud a voice said, ‘This is my Son, the Beloved;* with him I am well pleased; listen to him!’"
Is God speaking figuratively? Does God really have a son? How can Jesus really be God's son?
Does not prove your point about the bread and wine. Just throwing a verse into the air and hoping it lands. Is the dove in that chapter symbolic or literal. It is still the same problem.
Following that reason:
1. Jesus is a literal door.
2. Herod is a literal fox.
3. Jesus is literal light.
4. Peter IS SATAN.
5. We are literal sheep.
6. Jesus is a literal shepherd
7. Your leaders are literal wolves, dressed in sheep's clothing.
8. The pharisees are a literal brood of vipers.
9. Jesus is a literal word.
10. Jesus is a literal lamb.
I mean I can make this list longer.
Does not answer the point I made about evidence of the change. I gave you examples of literal changes in scripture and the evidence provided for those changes. You have zero evidence of a literal change
Last edited:
bluedog1us
Well-known member
We have refuted it many times. You are just blind to what scripture says. I can't make you see it. It will take God changing your heart to understand. Until, and if that happens, you will stay blind and deaf to His word!why not 'walk the talk'?
refute what i said is wrong. thanks.
But that is exactly what you claim - Jesus is sacrificed in the mass and then eaten. It is the very definition of cannibals. If you are consuming the real body of blood of Jesus that is the very definition of being a cannibal.ok, so it is cannibalism that you are accusing us just like the early christian martyrs who were charged by cannibalism by the romans. sorry to say that in cannibalism, the victim is killed before parts of it are eaten up but in communion, Jesus does not die and under the appearance of bread and wine is wholly consumed. in cannibalism, there is shedding of blood but in communion, Jesus gave himself to us in an unbloody manner. if eating flesh and drinking blood is truly immoral in any sense, it will be contrary to the holiness of Jesus to command the apostles to do an immoral act. see the logic? sorry to say that your cannibalism charge does not hold water.
another thing you should know is that, during those times 'eathing flesh and drinking blood' is symbolic of 'persecuting and assaulting' someone. could this be what Jesus meant when he said those words? that is for you to research and find out.
The called the early Christians a lot of things, even blaming them for the fire that burnt Rome. That does not make your point.
The highlight you should never have posted it is accurate as your priests have persecuted and assaulted many during the centuries, especially children. Once again proving that Jesus has nothing to do with your institution and its false teachings, actions, doctrines, practices, laws etc. No need for me to do any research at all.
RCs love to shoot themselves in the foot.
You have been refuted over, over, over, over and over again. You have failed to make your case for the false beliefs of the RCC.why not 'walk the talk'?
refute what i said is wrong. thanks.
dingoling.
Well-known member
You need to take those arguments to those who believe that:Still waiting for you to spit out what you are trying to say. I mean Jesus did not say He was speaking literally about the bread and wine passage.
Does not prove your point about the bread and wine. Just throwing a verse into the air and hoping it lands. Is the dove in that chapter symbolic or literal. It is still the same problem.
Following that reason:
1. Jesus is a literal door.
2. Herod is a literal fox.
3. Jesus is literal light.
4. Peter IS SATAN.
5. We are literal sheep.
6. Jesus is a literal shepherd
7. Your leaders are literal wolves, dressed in sheep's clothing.
8. The pharisees are a literal brood of vipers.
9. Jesus is a literal word.
10. Jesus is a literal lamb.
I mean I can make this list longer.
Does not answer the point I made about evidence of the change. I gave you examples of literal changes in scripture and the evidence provided for those changes. You have zero evidence of a literal change
1. Jesus is a literal door.
2. Herod is a literal fox.
3. Jesus is literal light.
4. Peter IS SATAN.
5. We are literal sheep.
6. Jesus is a literal shepherd
7. Your leaders are literal wolves, dressed in sheep's clothing.
8. The pharisees are a literal brood of vipers.
9. Jesus is a literal word.
10. Jesus is a literal lamb.
We don't believe any of those are true.
Well I am, it is you who says Jesus that the bread and wine literal change into flesh and blood. If that is how you work out what scripture means then whatever Jesus says unless He states otherwise must be literal. So according to your logic Jesus they are all literal.You need to take those arguments to those who believe that:
1. Jesus is a literal door.
2. Herod is a literal fox.
3. Jesus is literal light.
4. Peter IS SATAN.
5. We are literal sheep.
6. Jesus is a literal shepherd
7. Your leaders are literal wolves, dressed in sheep's clothing.
8. The pharisees are a literal brood of vipers.
9. Jesus is a literal word.
10. Jesus is a literal lamb.
We don't believe any of those are true.
You have to believe those to be true because that is how you work out the bread and wine change into flesh and blood. I am just applying your criteria to other verses. Nowhere are those verses said to be symbolic.
dingoling.
Well-known member
Well I am, it is you who says Jesus that the bread and wine literal change into flesh and blood. If that is how you work out what scripture means then whatever Jesus says unless He states otherwise must be literal. So according to your logic Jesus they are all literal.
You have to believe those to be true because that is how you work out the bread and wine change into flesh and blood. I am just applying your criteria to other verses. Nowhere are those verses said to be symbolic.
Not everything that Jesus said was symbolic.
My point he was not being literal about the bread and wine, it is symbolic. Well done.Not everything that Jesus said was symbolic.
dingoling.
Well-known member
You have no proof that Jesus was speaking symbolically.My point he was not being literal about the bread and wine, it is symbolic. Well done.
Yes I do there is no evidence of a literal change. All literal changes have evidence provided. Nile blood dead fish etc.You have no proof that Jesus was speaking symbolically.
As far as I know, all of the miracles recorded in the Bible were real – people saw them. Dead raised, blind given sight, deaf hearing, lame walking, mockers made speechless, et cetera. Or did the 4,000+ and 5,000+ people just believe their stomachs were full?Yes I do there is no evidence of a literal change. All literal changes have evidence provided. Nile blood dead fish etc.
To say that a miracle occurs without evidence is a case of "special pleading" – an informal fallacy wherein one cites something [transubstantiational "miracle"] as an exception to a general or universal principle [miracles have effects that can be observed using at least one of the five senses], without justifying the special exception. ["Ya gotta have faith, man!"] It is the application of a double standard.
--Rich
"Esse quam videri"
dingoling.
Well-known member
But Paul said, "So if anyone is in Christ there is a new creation: everything old has past away; see, everything has become new."As far as I know, all of the miracles recorded in the Bible were real – people saw them. Dead raised, blind given sight, deaf hearing, lame walking, mockers made speechless, et cetera. Or did the 4,000+ and 5,000+ people just believe their stomachs were full?
To say that a miracle occurs without evidence is a case of "special pleading" – an informal fallacy wherein one cites something [transubstantiational "miracle"] as an exception to a general or universal principle [miracles have effects that can be observed using at least one of the five senses], without justifying the special exception. ["Ya gotta have faith, man!"] It is the application of a double standard.
--Rich
"Esse quam videri"
We are a new creation in Christ but nothing has changed physically. Our outward appearance still looks the same.
looks like you do not agree with the meaning of 'bloodguilt or guilty of blood' connoting murder. i am still waiting for your refutation of my post #166.You have been refuted over, over, over, over and over again. You have failed to make your case for the false beliefs of the RCC.