Jesus is not literally in the bread and wine

balshan said:
Okay you do not sound like you are united with your other RCs on this topic.
Click to expand...
I am united with other RCs on this topic. None of us believe Jesus is in the bread and wine. If you know Catholic teaching you'll know what we do believe.

Before you tell me that ding would disagree I would add that ding is using protestant language to speak to a protestant. I'm using Catholic language to state Catholic teaching.
 
Kirby said:
I am united with other RCs on this topic. None of us believe Jesus is in the bread and wine. If you know Catholic teaching you'll know what we do believe.

Before you tell me that ding would disagree I would add that ding is using protestant language to speak to a protestant. I'm using Catholic language to state Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
I never said they did believe Jesus was in. I know not one RCs responds to the points raised in the op. Is it because they cannot defend their false belief the words are literal. Ding is not using non RC language at all, Ding has his/her own language and often has their feet jumping from one side of the argument to the other. You are not using RC poster language.

Again you have failed to respond to the points raise in the op. But doing the RC thing of diverting off topic.
 
balshan said:
I never said they did believe Jesus was in. I know not one RCs responds to the points raised in the op. Is it because they cannot defend their false belief the words are literal. Ding is not using non RC language at all, Ding has his/her own language and often has their feet jumping from one side of the argument to the other. You are not using RC poster language.

Again you have failed to respond to the points raise in the op. But doing the RC thing of diverting off topic.
Click to expand...
The title of the OP is "Jesus is not literally in the bread and wine". Then you asked us to show you with reason and evidence why you should think it is literal. Well .... Jesus is not literally in the bread and wine. You shouldn't believe He is. Now you're upset with me for NOT attempting to show you with reason and evidence something that isn't true.
 
Kirby said:
The title of the OP is "Jesus is not literally in the bread and wine". Then you asked us to show you with reason and evidence why you should think it is literal. Well .... Jesus is not literally in the bread and wine. You shouldn't believe He is. Now you're upset with me for NOT attempting to show you with reason and evidence something that isn't true.
Click to expand...
Ignore the title and get to the actual OP. That would be a crazy thought. I mean no RC can respond to the points, so I just see you as avoiding the issue and diverting it is the RRC way. I never said I believe it that is you misreading into it. If you cannot respond fine but don't pretend you are.

Two pages and nothing of substance to support the words being literal from any RC. I am not surprised at all.

Please let us lay down some guidelines:-

1. Do not say the scriptures do not say it is symbolic, that is just pointless. No one says they are speaking symbolically. If you make that defense then you are saying Peter is Satan, Herod is a fox, Jesus is a door and we should cut off body parts (thank you to the poster that pointed that argument out) and then Mary must be a sinner.

2. Do not use the saying you have no authority because that applies to every single RC who posts on these threads. You have no authority at all.

Please try and show with reasons and evidence why we should take it as literal.

Not one of these reasons for it not being the real presence have been answered by RCs, if it is the real presence then Jesus has broken His own Word about not consuming human flesh or drinking blood.

The hypocrisy of the RCC on these matters is showing. Let us look at the facts once again:

1. The covenant comes in with the shedding of blood, this did not happen at the last supper. The death of the testator.

2. Jesus was telling the apostles what was to happen, foretelling and preparation.

3. The Passover meal is symbolic, the elements at the meal are symbolic.

4. You are ignoring other scripture verses including Luke and Hebrews. Luke tells us it is a remembrance not literal.

5. There are evidence for all other physical changes - the Nile turning to blood water could not be drunk, the water into wine it was tasted, best wine.

6. It would be breaking the commandment against drinking blood which is in both testaments.

7. Jesus did not tempt the apostles to sin, Satan is the one who tempts us not Jesus.

8. If Jesus had tempted the apostles to sin, He would no longer be spotless and that would mean he was not our saviour.

9. The rules of covenants means a sacrifice is needed, there was no sacrifices at the LS.

10. The NC is related to a sin offering in Heb. which means there has to be a real death, a real sacrifice.

11. There is no evidence for it being literal when read in context of all scripture.

12. In the first Passover, the sign for deliverance and the only sign was the blood from the sacrificed lamb on the door lintels. Nothing else.

Another poster has shown that Jesus did state He was being symbolic:
 
balshan said:
Ignore the title and get to the actual OP. That would be a crazy thought. I mean no RC can respond to the points, so I just see you as avoiding the issue and diverting it is the RRC way. I never said I believe it that is you misreading into it. If you cannot respond fine but don't pretend you are.

Two pages and nothing of substance to support the words being literal from any RC. I am not surprised at all.

Please let us lay down some guidelines:-

1. Do not say the scriptures do not say it is symbolic, that is just pointless. No one says they are speaking symbolically. If you make that defense then you are saying Peter is Satan, Herod is a fox, Jesus is a door and we should cut off body parts (thank you to the poster that pointed that argument out) and then Mary must be a sinner.

2. Do not use the saying you have no authority because that applies to every single RC who posts on these threads. You have no authority at all.

Please try and show with reasons and evidence why we should take it as literal.

Not one of these reasons for it not being the real presence have been answered by RCs, if it is the real presence then Jesus has broken His own Word about not consuming human flesh or drinking blood.

The hypocrisy of the RCC on these matters is showing. Let us look at the facts once again:

1. The covenant comes in with the shedding of blood, this did not happen at the last supper. The death of the testator.

2. Jesus was telling the apostles what was to happen, foretelling and preparation.

3. The Passover meal is symbolic, the elements at the meal are symbolic.

4. You are ignoring other scripture verses including Luke and Hebrews. Luke tells us it is a remembrance not literal.

5. There are evidence for all other physical changes - the Nile turning to blood water could not be drunk, the water into wine it was tasted, best wine.

6. It would be breaking the commandment against drinking blood which is in both testaments.

7. Jesus did not tempt the apostles to sin, Satan is the one who tempts us not Jesus.

8. If Jesus had tempted the apostles to sin, He would no longer be spotless and that would mean he was not our saviour.

9. The rules of covenants means a sacrifice is needed, there was no sacrifices at the LS.

10. The NC is related to a sin offering in Heb. which means there has to be a real death, a real sacrifice.

11. There is no evidence for it being literal when read in context of all scripture.

12. In the first Passover, the sign for deliverance and the only sign was the blood from the sacrificed lamb on the door lintels. Nothing else.

Another poster has shown that Jesus did state He was being symbolic:
Click to expand...
Why ignore the title of the OP? Jesus isn't literally in the bread and wine. You're right about that.

just to clarify: Are you asking us to show with reason and evidence that Jesus is literally in the bread and wine?

btw: The Catholic Church does teach that it's symbolic.
 
Kirby said:
Why ignore the title of the OP? Jesus isn't literally in the bread and wine. You're right about that.

just to clarify: Are you asking us to show with reason and evidence that Jesus is literally in the bread and wine?

btw: The Catholic Church does teach that it's symbolic.
Click to expand...
NO. Obviously you cannot read the op. Try again
Ignore the title and get to the actual OP. That would be a crazy thought. I mean no RC can respond to the points, so I just see you as avoiding the issue and diverting it is the RRC way. I never said I believe it that is you misreading into it. If you cannot respond fine but don't pretend you are.

Two pages and nothing of substance to support the words being literal from any RC. I am not surprised at all.

Please let us lay down some guidelines:-

1. Do not say the scriptures do not say it is symbolic, that is just pointless. No one says they are speaking symbolically. If you make that defense then you are saying Peter is Satan, Herod is a fox, Jesus is a door and we should cut off body parts (thank you to the poster that pointed that argument out) and then Mary must be a sinner.

2. Do not use the saying you have no authority because that applies to every single RC who posts on these threads. You have no authority at all.

Please try and show with reasons and evidence why we should take it as literal.

Not one of these reasons for it not being the real presence have been answered by RCs, if it is the real presence then Jesus has broken His own Word about not consuming human flesh or drinking blood.

The hypocrisy of the RCC on these matters is showing. Let us look at the facts once again:

1. The covenant comes in with the shedding of blood, this did not happen at the last supper. The death of the testator.

2. Jesus was telling the apostles what was to happen, foretelling and preparation.

3. The Passover meal is symbolic, the elements at the meal are symbolic.

4. You are ignoring other scripture verses including Luke and Hebrews. Luke tells us it is a remembrance not literal.

5. There are evidence for all other physical changes - the Nile turning to blood water could not be drunk, the water into wine it was tasted, best wine.

6. It would be breaking the commandment against drinking blood which is in both testaments.

7. Jesus did not tempt the apostles to sin, Satan is the one who tempts us not Jesus.

8. If Jesus had tempted the apostles to sin, He would no longer be spotless and that would mean he was not our saviour.

9. The rules of covenants means a sacrifice is needed, there was no sacrifices at the LS.

10. The NC is related to a sin offering in Heb. which means there has to be a real death, a real sacrifice.

11. There is no evidence for it being literal when read in context of all scripture.

12. In the first Passover, the sign for deliverance and the only sign was the blood from the sacrificed lamb on the door lintels. Nothing else.

RCs claim over and over again the words of Jesus at the Last Supper are literal but they are not. Is that easier for you.
 
Kirby said:
I am united with other RCs on this topic. None of us believe Jesus is in the bread and wine. If you know Catholic teaching you'll know what we do believe.

Before you tell me that ding would disagree I would add that ding is using protestant language to speak to a protestant. I'm using Catholic language to state Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
Kirby said:
I am united with other RCs on this topic. None of us believe Jesus is in the bread and wine. If you know Catholic teaching you'll know what we do believe.

Before you tell me that ding would disagree I would add that ding is using protestant language to speak to a protestant. I'm using Catholic language to state Catholic teaching.
================================================end Kirby reply

No kidding
Have you ever wondered why on every site you visit, no matter whom your opponent might be,
it seems as if you are vying against the *SAME PERSON* even though you know you are not?

Do you tire of the same old, same old, and wish for once,
that something NEW would ever be presented as a rebuttal

Well, NOW you know, there is a *Semi-Secret Playbook* out there,
handed along wrapped in old copies of the L'Observano Romano,
like a dead Tiber trout...carefully preserved,
and crafted over the centuries as POSITIVE means to confront,
confound and confuse your Protestant opponents....

The "ancient church" argument
To be used alongside the 1 billion strong gambit.
Always, always, always constantly repeat that your church
is the only one that goes all the way back to the Apostles
and is the church all the early church fathers talk about
all the way through the Medieval period and into the
modern era.
Always, always, always repeat this endlessly.

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.
 
balshan said:
There is nothing in scripture which says it is symbolic. You have avoided the points made in the op. I know that is because you cannot face the questions raised in the op.
Click to expand...

Exactly, there is nothing in scripture that says it is symbolic. God doesn't say that it is symbolic.
 
A new day said:
Like you, travis clark a ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST every mass took the wafer and wine, every mass. But it didn't make him better did it? If a person is as you say "infused", with Jesus and becomes like like Jesus, then you can explain to us why this priest defiled a ROMAN CATHOLIC alter. In spite of him .....

a) being a rc priest
b) has been ingesting a lot of wafers his entire lifetime.
c) being a member of the one true church.
d) priests are infallible

The rcc teaches you, that you become more like Jesus with every mass, and yet, you still need confession booths, scapular's, relics, indulgences, because you can't attain perfection, that your trying so hard to get. So was travis clark. He never attained it, why was that?
Click to expand...
It's "worse"! The RCC's favorite whipping boy, Martin Luther,
a) was a RC priest
b) had been ingesting a lot of wafers his entire lifetime.
c) was a member of the "one true church"
and
d) had the eternal, invisible* mark of the priesthood on his soul. (OPAP?)
... and despite all these "advantages", RCs here hate, despise, and abhor him.

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"

* Odd that Catholics demand a visible church from Christians, yet sweep the visible actions (proof) of their priests under the rug. Double standards, much?
 
A new day said:
We don't need a scholar to tell us the meaning of the verses above, they are self explanatory.
Click to expand...
Unless one has allowed the orgy-nization to which they belong to indoctrinate/ brainwash them into believing that they do need scholars to tell them the "secret meaning" behind the "mysteeeeerious" words of God. ?

And, just like Mormons, JWs, etc., the organization is ready, willing, and able to teach the secrets of their "true" religion. For a fee, of course – both financial and spiritual.

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"
 
balshan said:
Please try and show with reasons and evidence why we should take it as literal.
Click to expand...
There is one and only one reason why Roman Catholics take the words of Jesus here as literal:

Mommy church says
that they are literal!​

End of discussion. Reasons and evidences matter not at all. Logic goes out the window. Rome has spoken, and her minions must believe.

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"
 
dingoling. said:
Exactly, there is nothing in scripture that says it is symbolic. God doesn't say that it is symbolic.
Click to expand...
EXactly there is nothing in scripture that says it is literal. God doesn't say that it is literal. Try responding to the OP that would be a nice change. You have proved nothing and that statement you provided is meaningless. No one says I am speaking symbolically now. You know this from context and I raised a lot of points as to why it is symbolic and your provided, oh yes, nada.
 
RiJoRi said:
There is one and only one reason why Roman Catholics take the words of Jesus here as literal:

Mommy church says
that they are literal!​

End of discussion. Reasons and evidences matter not at all. Logic goes out the window. Rome has spoken, and her minions must believe.

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"
Click to expand...
They obviously do not follow Peter.

1 Peter 3:15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

Non RCs have defended their faith and RCs have provided no defence whatsoever.
 
balshan said:
EXactly there is nothing in scripture that says it is literal. God doesn't say that it is literal. Try responding to the OP that would be a nice change. You have proved nothing and that statement you provided is meaningless. No one says I am speaking symbolically now. You know this from context and I raised a lot of points as to why it is symbolic and your provided, oh yes, nada.
Click to expand...
All we need are the words of Jesus.
 
balshan said:
5. There are evidence for all other physical changes - the Nile turning to blood water could not be drunk, the water into wine it was tasted, best wine.
Click to expand...
The bread and wine are not changed physically. The atoms remain the same. Carbohydrates and ETOH alcohol are as before. Which is why you still get calories from the bread and still get drunk from the wine.

The atoms are part of matter. They make up the material for a 'thing,' or substance. For example, a house can be made out of bricks or out of wood. The material is different from the substance, which is the house. The brick house can be dismantled and the brick materials used to build a bridge. In that case, the house has changed into a bridge, though the material stays the same. The bricks are the same but the substance (what it is, whether it is a house or a bridge) has wholly changed. The dogma from Trent as to the Eucharist is that the substance is wholly changed, from one substance (bread or wine) to a new substance (flesh or blood) (trans-substantiation).

This is from an interview with Ratzinger, who was then head of Doctrine in the Catholic Church, and would become the recently passed Pope Benedict XVI:

" It has never been asserted that, so to say, nature in a physical sense is being changed. The transformation reaches down to a more profound level. Tradition has it that this is a metaphysical process. Christ lays hold upon what is, from a purely physical viewpoint, bread and wine, in its inmost being, so that it is changed from within and Christ truly gives himself in them". (Joseph Ratzinger interview with Peter Seewald, God and the World, 2002)

The question is then not so much, how come a house can become a bridge if you are not changing the physical material?
It's more, how come we can see a house become a bridge because the structure and appearance changes, but nothing changes in the appearance of the bread or wine? Isn't there always a change in appearance in some way when one thing becomes another? Well, the teaching is that this is the exception. The change occurs, but the outward appearance of bread and wine remain as symbols for what this substance is: our food and drink and life from Christ.
 
balshan said:
They obviously do not follow Peter.

1 Peter 3:15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

Non RCs have defended their faith and RCs have provided no defence whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Again, RCs follow their contra-Scriptura church, which does not teach them to defend their faith. Or even why they should. ("Leave it to the professionals, kiddies!") And we've seen Rome's "defense" – absorb them, or kill them. ?

--Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top