Thanks . . . . . But, No Thanks

You are dividing yourself from other Christians over doctrinal issues such as the bread and wine.

Scripture says very clearly that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ and you say that it is not - Scripture doesn't say that it is not.
AND AGAIN we all agree what Scripture says
Scripture has meaning:

When a passage can be interpreted in different ways: (i.e. figurative of literal)
the interpretation that contradicts other Scriptures; must be in error.
 
OK. Let's see those verses.

Matthew 26:26-28, "While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
 
AND AGAIN we all agree what Scripture says
Scripture has meaning:

When a passage can be interpreted in different ways: (i.e. figurative of literal)
the interpretation that contradicts other Scriptures; must be in error.
Well your interpretation contradicts what Jesus said about the bread and wine.
 
Well your interpretation contradicts what Jesus said about the bread and wine.
saying that language is figurative is not contradictory UNLESS it actually stated it was NOT figurative
so do the verses say that it is NOT figurative?
NO!!! therefore I did not contradict Scripture

Scripture is in harmony if Matthew 26:26-28 is figurative
 
Last edited:
saying that language is figurative is not contradictory UNLESS it actually stated it was NOT figurative

Scripture is in harmony if Matthew 26:26-28 is figurative

But that logic doesn't prove that the bread and wine are not the body and blood of Christ. You need to look at it from a Catholic view and see why the CC believes it to be the body and blood of Christ.
 
You need to look at it from a Catholic view and see why the CC believes it to be the body and blood of Christ.
why would I do that?

INSTEAD why not reason through Scripture?

Defend your point of view: Have a reasoned response to the challenges instead of ignoring them

You said
"The wine is the new covenant and obviously went into effect with the words of Jesus at the Last Supper."

Scripture says...
The New Covenant
When did the new covenant go into effect? Take a swing! What is you answer?

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."
----------------------

forgiveness of sin.

When was the penalty of sins paid for? Take a swing: What is you answer?

1 Corinthians 15:3
Christ died for our sins, according to Scriptures

1 Peter 3:18
Christ died for sins, once for all”

Hebrews 9:15
15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, 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


Isaiah 53:
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors
------------------

Propitiation (the appeasement of God’s wrath)

When was the propitiation made? Take a swing! What is you answer?

Romans 5:7-9
7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

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—
 
Matthew 26:26-28, "While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
Could you please explain how you came to the conclusion that this is the literal body and blood of Christ, when men like Tertulian, Justin Martyr, and Augustine believed it was symbolic?
 
If India was the the greatest military power on earth: then Transubstantiation would be a just another footnote of early Church errors


Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church
It is one of the Saint Thomas Christian churches tracing its origins to the missionary activity of Thomas the Apostle.

Beliefs and practices
Their beliefs and practices before the arrival of the Portuguese (around 1498) as evident in the canons of the Synod of Diamper.
Malankara Church,
1.denied the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
2.maintained the spiritual presence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament.

3.condemned the adoration of images as idolatrous.
4.were not aware of the intercession of the saints.
5.were not aware of prayers for the dead.
6.had no knowledge of purgatory.
7.had no knowledge of extreme unction.
8.had no knowledge of auricular confession.
9.did not follow celibacy of the clergy.
Pope JP II however, totally disagreed with the canon's belief and practice of #3. In his encyclical letter on the Eucharist, Domincae cenae, JP II said this regarding the Roman Catholic Eucharist: "May our adoration never cease." * That is what perpetual adoration is: adoration that never ceases. So let us contiue to work hard for the spread of perpetual adoration, so that our Holy Father's wish for perpetual adoration in every parish in the
world may be fulfilled and that Christians of this millennium may witness the triumph of the
Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Eucharistic Reign of Christ.

*"The Eucharist in the New Millennium (Newlsetter of the No. American Apostolate of the MIssionaries of the BLessed Sacrament, Winter / Spring 2000, Vol. 15, No.1)
 
But that logic doesn't prove that the bread and wine are not the body and blood of Christ.
if A then B is true
then if not B then not A must be true

If it rained all night then the morning grass will be wet
If the morning grass is not wet; then it did not rain all night

If it were the blood and flesh at the Last Supper then the New Covenant went into effect the LS
If the NC did not go into effect at the LS then it was not the blood and flesh

but but but our infallible weatherman said it rained all night
Q: then why is the grass not wet?
A: our infallible weatherman said it rained all night
Q: then why is the grass not wet?
A: ........(and now we run away)
 
Last edited:
But your particular understanding of scripture isn't the highest authority. You don't have the authority to divide with other Christians over doctrinal issues based on your own personal interpretation of scripture otherwise scripture is no longer your highest authority - your personal interpretation of scripture now becomes your "highest" authority.
ding - it might help others at this point to know what the difference between 'Eucharistic adoration' and 'Eucharistic amazement' is, in the teachings and practices of the RCC. Could you explain the difference please.
 
Could you please explain how you came to the conclusion that this is the literal body and blood of Christ, when men like Tertulian, Justin Martyr, and Augustine believed it was symbolic?
This Augustine?

"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

...

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).
 
If nCCs believed that was clear teaching from the whole council of Scripture they would not ignore it.
you have misrepresented the issue AGAIN!

see "Strawman" argument
Ding is doing what rc members do best. Ding is changing the uncomfortable topic of the OP. Ding needs to start a new thread if he/she wants to change the topic of the OP. Don't let Ding get away with that.
 
You believe that it is false. Because you believe that it is false doesn't make it false.
No that is what you do. The poster gives very well thought out reasons as to why he/she does not believe the false teachings of the RCC and you give us nothing. It is very sad indeed.
 
Looks as if the rc's have succeeded in changing the topic of another thread. Typical
They only like to discuss their so called authority or the real presence or the false claims of being the one true church pillar and foundation of truth with the occasional reference to imputed righteousness. Pages and pages and pages of them changing to these topics no matter what the thread is about and they have NEVER provided evidence for their false beliefs and claims.

My opinion is they do this so no true discussions can take place. They even turned and diverted the topic of could one lose their salvation down one of these paths. That could have been extremely interesting but no, they obviously are afraid of discussion or maybe their institution hasn't told them what to believe on other topics.
 
Back
Top