Strike 3 and your out

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why do you believe that it is more reliable?
Because it does not come from a lying institution for a start. I looked up the quotes to check them out and find them factual. I don't blindly follow an institution or a man.
 
Because it does not come from a lying institution for a start. I looked up the quotes to check them out and find them factual. I don't blindly follow an institution or a man.
So the quote is not the problem. Great. But what about Matt's interpretation? How do you know Matt's interpretation is not a problem?
 
So the quote is not the problem. Great. But what about Matt's interpretation? How do you know Matt's interpretation is not a problem?
As I said I use my brain, and I find your institution tells one lie after another and this has been its practice for years and years, decades and decades, centuries and centuries etc. If I disagree with his interpretation I would have pointed it out. I am capable of thinking. But it is symbolic and strike three you are out and I hit the ball out of the park.
 
As I said I use my brain, and I find your institution tells one lie after another and this has been its practice for years and years, decades and decades, centuries and centuries etc. If I disagree with his interpretation I would have pointed it out. I am capable of thinking. But it is symbolic and strike three you are out and I hit the ball out of the park.
It is symbolic???? But then you claim that scripture alone is your final authority. If scripture alone is your final authority then you don't have the authority to settle the issue. You are still striking out.
 
It is symbolic???? But then you claim that scripture alone is your final authority. If scripture alone is your final authority then you don't have the authority to settle the issue. You are still striking out.
No it is you that says what is my final authority but I am not an idiot and now the difference between symbolic and literal. I am also not blindly following a lying institution. You are still striking out and that will never change.
 
No it is you that says what is my final authority but I am not an idiot and now the difference between symbolic and literal. I am also not blindly following a lying institution. You are still striking out and that will never change.
Who or what is your final authority?
 
Which clearly shows your comprehension problem. Keep trying. I have clearly stated my beliefs over and over again.
I don't see any reason to keep trying, it is obvious that you are your own final authority. It is not scripture and it is not the Holy Spirit.
 
I don't see any reason to keep trying, it is obvious that you are your own final authority. It is not scripture and it is not the Holy Spirit.
I don't find a need to repeat myself when I have clearly stated who is and you haven't understood it in the past. It would be like throwing pearls before...you have once again posted lies about me. But no surprise as your institution lies and is founded by the father of lies.
 
The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. But certain Christians tell us that it is not. Why should we believe these other Christians? Here are the strikes against these Christians who tell us that the bread and wine are not the body and blood of Christ:

strike one: the actual words of scripture say that it is the body and blood of Christ

strike two: a vast number of Christians believe that it is the body and blood of Christ. (There are no Christians who believe that Jesus was a literal door or a lamb...)

strike three: it was taught and believed by the very early church. Christians who knew the apostles, who were disciples of the apostles and whose first language was Greek.

So I say that 3 strikes and your out, right?

3 strikes and you are out, and your three bullet points are not right.

Here is what Jesus said:

Luke 22:18-20​

18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Astonishing words from the Savior. But I didn't read any statement that said bread and wine are literally present when some hocus-pocus words are delivered. The wine and bread are symbolic. Jesus said to do this in remembrance of him.

Strike 1 refuted.

Logical fallacies does not help your case. Appealing to the majority is a cop out. Most people supported slavery, except for the slaves.

Tyranny of the majority - Wikipedia

Strike 2 refuted.

This is an outright falsehood.

Even Peter and Paul had disagreements. It is generally believed that those closest to the events should know the details. You need a course in church history.

Church History Series | SermonAudio

Strike 3 refuted.
 
Last edited:
To my knowledge that has not been even one Christian who believed that Jesus was speaking literally in any of these passages is stark contrast to the bread and wine being the body and blood of Christ. So there isn't even a debate over the passages you listed. Sorry but you are still striking out here.
Scripture strikes out according to your knowledge, since you decide what is and is not literal.
 
strike one: the actual words of scripture say that it is the body and blood of Christ

Actually, the Holy Spirit says repeatedly that the consecrated Eucharist is bread.

Yet Catholics refuse to believe Him and charge Him as a liar.

strike two: a vast number of Christians believe that it is the body and blood of Christ.

It is a good thing sound doctrine is not determined by popular vote!

Why you thought popularity is a litmus for truth reveals great naivete. What I find very interesting about your claim is the reality that most Catholics themselves do not even believe it!


strike three: it was taught and believed by the very early church.

The early church believed many things about the Eucharist....some of which are rejected by the RCC.

Looks like Catholics strike out on that alone.

Secondly, what matters to a Christ follower is what the Word of God says, not what some fallible people said centuries after Christ.
 
Actually, the Holy Spirit says repeatedly that the consecrated Eucharist is bread.

Yet Catholics refuse to believe Him and charge Him as a liar.

It is a good thing sound doctrine is not determined by popular vote!

Why you thought popularity is a litmus for truth reveals great naivete. What I find very interesting about your claim is the reality that most Catholics themselves do not even believe it!
the wide road is a crowed road!

The early church believed many things about the Eucharist....some of which are rejected by the RCC.

Looks like Catholics strike out on that alone.

Secondly, what matters to a Christ follower is what the Word of God says, not what some fallible people said centuries after Christ.
catholics don't connect the 2. the RCC doesn't connect the 2 so it can't teach it. catholics only know what the RCC teaches them.
 
Scripture strikes out according to your knowledge, since you decide what is and is not literal.
The words that Jesus used in the upper room where not words that would be used if he was speaking figuratively.

You are still striking out.
 
Here are more actual words:

John 9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
John 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
John 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
and as Monty Python would say... 'run away, run away' ... did disciples leave Christ in droves over these 'hard sayings'?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top