Does God's wrath have to be continuously appeased (propitiation)?

pilgrim said:
And so our God-given sense of sight as a judge of Truth would cancel the Lutheran idea of the Real Presence as well.
Click to expand...

Baloney! It would NOT! And it isn't just sight, but smell, taste, and feel. The Gospel writers called the bread Jesus broke "bread." Jesus called the contents of the cup, AFTER consecrating it, "the/this fruit of the vine." I.e. wine.

WE don't teach that the bread and wine are ONLY Jesus' body and blood, but are BOTH bread and wine, body and blood, after consecration. We don't limit Jesus. IF HE can have two natures in one being, then so can the bread and wine at His command. Isn't He Lord of all creation?
pilgrim said:
If our doctrine of the Eucharist can't possibly be right, neither can yours.
Click to expand...
Oh, really? Why? Because YOU say so? Sorry, but that is utter nonsense!
 
Bonnie said:
But it also remained bread. IF it were ONLY Jesus' body, then His disciples would have been cannibals, when eating the bread! But Jesus broke bread; the disciples ate bread. They drank wine. Their God-given senses told them that they remained bread and wine, but in some way they did not fully understand, they also became His body and blood.

Jesus didn't need to say "this is my body AND bread" as His disciples were well aware that He was holding bread. They weren't stupid or blind! They could touch, feel, and taste that the bread was still bread, even after Jesus said "this is My body." Same with the wine. Honestly, why do Catholics put Jesus in a box? Why could the bread and wine NOT be BOTH Jesus' body and blood AND bread and wine, at the same time? Jesus is both fully God and fully man, two natures...so, why can't the bread and wine also have two natures? Is anything too hard for the Lord?
Click to expand...
If that is what it was, then that is what He would have said.
 
pilgrim said:
If that is what it was, then that is what He would have said.
Click to expand...
And if there was a Purgatory, Jesus would have said there is. If Mary had been conceived without original sin, He would have said so. If there were indulgences, He would have explained them to us...if it is fine and dandy to pray to dead saints as one would God, He would have said so, and NOT started out His prayer with: "Our Father, which is in heaven..." but instead, "O great prophet Moses, help us, save us, take our prayers to God..." Or something similar.
If He had wanted the church to be ruled out of Rome by one man, the Pope, He would have told us so. If He had wanted clergy in the church to be unmarried, He would have taught that...

Did He?

See how that works?

But Jesus DID
call the cup of wine "the/this fruit of the vine" AFTER He had called it the"New Testament in MY blood"--and that was right before all His disciples had even drunk from the cup. That is the dual nature right there!
 
pilgrim said:
I twisted nothing.
Click to expand...

Yes, you did twist what I wrote.
pilgrim said:
I also do not say the terrible things that you do over and over, day after day, year after year about the Church. The Church is holy even though there are sinners in it. And, Yes, WE ARE ALL UPSET ABOUT THE CLERGY ABUSE OF MINORS, inside and outside the Church. But sin does not cancel the Church. We pray for the Church and we put faith in Jesus' promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I suggest you do the same.
Click to expand...
I do believe Jesus' promise that the church would never die. But your church is not His, not with all the unbiblical doctrines it teaches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top