D
ding
Guest
But "man" says the bread and wine are not the body and blood of Christ. God says it is. So how does that work?
- Status
Jesus used symbolic language, if He meant literal they would have been biting his body which was right in front of them. It is only man that turns symbolic into literal. He also says do in remembrance. It is not literal at all.
1 Cor 11:14
and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me
This type of memorial is not unknown:
Exodus 12:14
Now this day will be a memorial to you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations you are to celebrate it as a permanent ordinance.
The lamb is never the same lamb at Passover meals, but is a remembrance of what the Lord has done.
The bread and wine is not the real body and blood it is remembrance of what the Lord has done and is doing for us.
One man says it is real and another says it is not. However, Cannibalism is against God's commandments and to eat the real body and blood would be the act of a cannibalism.
D
ding
Guest
Your words, based on your interpretation of scripture, is that the bread and wine are not the body and blood of Christ. This is the words of man. We should be careful.
1Thess521
Well-known member
YOU CLAIM the new covenant went into effect, the penalty of sins paid for, and propitiation was made IN THE UPPER ROOM
YOU CONCEDE there was no death in the Upper Room
YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT to resolve Scripture that states
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."
1 Corinthians 15:3
Christ died for our sins, according to Scriptures
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—
stand up for what you believe: address these verses
Last edited:
Your interpretation is only the words of man as well. We should be careful.
1Thess521
Well-known member
what's your interpretation of these Scriptures?
Are they referring to symbolic death?
YOU should be careful
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."
1 Corinthians 15:3
Christ died for our sins, according to Scriptures
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—
nan
Well-known member
Simple, ding. They chose to believe man over God.
He didn't say they weren't symbolic. He often used symbolism when He spoke. He never said oh by the way I am not really a door, I am being symbolic.
No that is not what we want you to do. We want you to really read the scriptures, pray for guidance as you do, be open to what the Holy Spirit says, discern the fruit of the institution and the man you are following not just this year but look at them across the centuries. Its fruit smells, if the fruit smells it is not the church Jesus founded.
D
ding
Guest
No one is or ever has suggested that throughout the history of Christianity that Jesus was a literal door.
There is only one church to look at that has a history across the centuries and that is the Catholic church.
Really I wonder why? I am sure someone would have wanted a Jesus door in their house.
Your institution has shown throughout the centuries that its founder is the father of lies, and it is great at lying.
There is only 1 started in the NT - His church, His body - those who believed in Him, His word and followed Him. that is not the RCC (which didn't exist at that time).
as a catholic you believe in and follow the RCC and its pope. the RCC bible is the ccc.
leonard03782
Well-known member
This is what you use to determine whether or nor the rcc is the one "true" church? Seriously?
The Jews have been around for approximately 5000 years. They were delivered out of Egyptian captivity by GOD through Moses. They were given the Law of GOD through Moses on Mt. Sinai. They witnessed the miracles of GOD up close and in living color. GOD spoke to them through the Prophets for thousands of years. GOD came down to earth in the Person of Jesus Christ to Israel in order to offer them the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus commissioned the Apostles to preach the Kingdom of Heaven to the Jews only. The Jews were set apart from the nations of the world in order to shine the Light of GOD to it's neighbors and the whole world. In other words, the Jews were supposed to be the one true church of the One True Living GOD. The saddest part of this story is that they are no closer to GOD today than they were 5000 years ago.
I said all of that to say this one thing:
Just because your religion, your "one true church" has been around for 1700 years, does not mean that it has GOD, that it teaches correctly about GOD, or that should be held up as being of GOD. In fact, it should be held under closer scrutiny.
1Thess521
Well-known member
YOU CLAIM the new covenant went into effect, the penalty of sins paid for, and propitiation was made IN THE UPPER ROOM
YOU CONCEDE there was no death in the Upper Room
YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT to resolve Scripture that states
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."
1 Corinthians 15:3
Christ died for our sins, according to Scriptures
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—
stand up for what you believe: address these verses
1Thess521
Well-known member
It works like this
Scriptures say a death is required for a new covenant
Scriptures say Christ died for our sins
Scriptures say we were reconciled though though Christ's death
YOU CONCEDE there was no death in the Upper Room
nan
Well-known member
Say what? Where did I ever say you should believe man over God?
First Corinthians 11:26 "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
Matthew 26:29 “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”
If that isn't symbolic, what is it?
nan
Well-known member
And this is the word of God.
First Corinthians 11:26 "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
Matthew 26:29 “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”
Care to comment?
nan
Well-known member
For blood to be present in the cup, there has to be blood present at the Last Supper.
RayneBeau
Well-known member
ding was trying to reduce these verses to simply a question of literal or figurative interpretation of this scripture. However, it is so much more! ding and RC's in general need to note that when Christ said these words, He was standing before His disciples in His body, and He was holding up the bread and wine so that it was clear that the words This is my body were intended to be understood symbolically. There can't be any doubt about this because after He stated This is my body, He called it bread 3 times, which He certainly wouldn't have done if at that point it was no longer bread, but had literally become His body (every time you eat this bread . . . ) 1 Cor. 11: 26-28. Since it was Christ who called the substance both bread, and body, He must have been speaking symbolically either when He called it bread, or when He called it body. The question really is not, whether we should interpret the passage literally or symbolically. The question is "Which part must be interpreted literally and which part symbolically?" Was Jesus speaking literally when He called the substance which He held in His hand His body, or when he called it bread? One or the other must have been symbolic. The only other choice is that it changed from bread to His body, and then back to bread again.
Last edited:
- Status