Strike 3 and your out

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
God didn't say that it is symbolic, man did. You are wanting us to listen to what man says?
 
God didn't say that it is symbolic, man did. You are wanting us to listen to what man says?
Seriously, of course He did not say it was symbolic. No one who uses symbolic language ever says oh by the way now I am going to be symbolic. That is just the most stupid statement I have ever seen and it keeps getting used.

Symbolic language is used throughout the whole of scripture. The only place RCC wants to say symbolic language is not symbolic is the bread and the wine. They accept that the other symbols are symbols. The door is a symbol, fruit is symbolic, light is used as a symbol, numbers can be used as symbols. None say they are symbolic uses.
 
Last edited:
Paul didn't believe that it was symbolic.
Why did both he and Jesus speak of taking communion in remembrance? Remembrance is a memorial, not a sacrificial re-enactment.

That said, one of the worse things a soul can do is be tricked by the wicked to willingly eat human flesh and drink blood, even when they are ignorant that what they are actually eating is a wafer and wine. Eating human sacrifices is specifically forbidden as it is heinously wicked. This just shows that there is nothing of Christ about you.
 
ding said:
God didn't say that it is symbolic, man did. You are wanting us to listen to what man says?
Jesus was a Jew as were those with Him at the supper. Do you believe Jesus willfully and openly broke Jewish law and was asking the other Jews to do the same? He would encourage other Jews to break Jewish law?
 
God didn't say that it is symbolic, man did. You are wanting us to listen to what man says?
are these verse symbolic?


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—


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

stand up for what you believe: address these verses
 
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.

ding - there is another similar statement made in Mark 14:25, when Jesus calls the wine, fruit of the vine, after the point at which according to RCC doctrine, it should have no longer been fruit of the vine, but should have been completely transformed into the blood of Christ. If it had already been literally changed into blood, would Jesus not have called it blood instead of fruit of the vine?
 
God didn't say that it is symbolic, man did. You are wanting us to listen to what man says?
Even more important ding, is the fact that in the RC mass, at the moment that the miracle should occur, absolutely NOTHING happens! Here's a comparison for you that you should be able to understand, Christ also changed water into wine. In that case, it was very clear to all that it was no longer water, but had actually become wine; The head waiter at the wedding feast, tasted the water made wine, without knowing where it came from; only the other waiters knew, since they had drawn the water. Then the waiter in charge called the groom over and remarked to him: "People usually serve the choice wine first; then when the guests have been drinking awhile, a lesser vintage. What you have done is to keep the choice wine until now." John 2: 8-10. Think of Christ's other miracles, ding. When He healed the paralytic and the man who was lame, did they continue to lie there as if nothing had happened?
Don't lose sight of the true purpose of the communion service. Christ never once told His disciples to offer his body again, but he did tell them twice, to partake in remembrance of Him. We honor Christ by doing what HE commands.
 
Why did both he and Jesus speak of taking communion in remembrance? Remembrance is a memorial, not a sacrificial re-enactment.

That said, one of the worse things a soul can do is be tricked by the wicked to willingly eat human flesh and drink blood, even when they are ignorant that what they are actually eating is a wafer and wine. Eating human sacrifices is specifically forbidden as it is heinously wicked. This just shows that there is nothing of Christ about you.
Just one of the things that Roman Catholics do not realize and certainly do not remember (nor does their 'church' want them to 'remember') is Jesus Christ's one sufficient sacrifice. Bowing before the bread that one of their ordained priests in the religion of Roman Catholicism, acts out and 'consecrates,' is nothing but sheer idolatry, because it is NOT Jesus Christ. Roman Catholics have no true concept of the significance of communion, therefore they completely miss out on taking it in "remembrance" of Him.
 
Just one of the things that Roman Catholics do not realize and certainly do not remember (nor does their 'church' want them to 'remember') is Jesus Christ's one sufficient sacrifice. Bowing before the bread that one of their ordained priests in the religion of Roman Catholicism, acts out and 'consecrates,' is nothing but sheer idolatry, because it is NOT Jesus Christ. Roman Catholics have no true concept of the significance of communion, therefore they completely miss out on taking it in "remembrance" of Him.
So the bread of the NC is lesser than that of the OC?
 
God didn't say that it is symbolic, man did. You are wanting us to listen to what man says?
are these verse symbolic?


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—


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

stand up for what you believe: address these verse
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top