Posted on 02/28/2017 7:05:04 AM PST by metmom
Does yours? The only Christ of Scripture is one that was "manifested in the flesh," which was seen, felt and heard as incarnated, versus a Gnostic christ which was not what he appeared to be.
And a plainly literal reading of "this is my body which is broken for you," and "my blood..which is shed" "which is given for the life of the world" would mean that what the apostles were eating the same literal body and blood that looked, felt, and would taste and scientifically test as actual flesh and blood.
In contrast to some radically new and novel form explained by some metaphysical fantasy, in which what is said to be Christ is not what he appears to be, and would even scientifically test as, meaning bread and wine, which do not even actually exist, even though they decay and then Christ ceases to be in that form.
While within Gnosticism you had the belief that what Christ looked and behaved like, as manifestly being incarnated with a tangible real body of flesh and blood, was not real (Christ being a sort of phantom but looking human), in Catholicism you have the belief that (in transubstantiation) what Christ looks, feels, tastes and would test as (bread and wine), is not the reality (Christ's corporeal body and blood only looking, tasting, testing, etc. like bread and wine).
Instead, only the metaphorical, versus metaphysical, understanding easily conflates with the rest of Scripture , and John in particular.
Which is an absolute imperative as much as other "verily, verily" statements, and thus to be consistent, you must hold that this means that no one who denies the "Real (but metaphysical) Presence" has spiritual life in them, and can see eternal life with God?
Yes or no. Be consistent.
So you really want to contend that God being able to do something is a sound basis for doctrine? There are some Mormons that would like you.
Which is another falsehood. How do you get the idea that the importance of sound doctrine is contrary to SS?
False religion kind of comes to my mind.
Is this thread going to devolve into yet another 'the KJV is the ONLY accurate translation' or an unending 'Catholicism is the ONLY way to make it to Heaven' one?
At a TENTH of the way to the NUMBER; I see that at least one of my concerns has occurred already...
And that doesn’t include switching form literal to figurative and back to literal again within the same sentence even.
By this we can know that catholiciism is not of God, because that religion demands the adherents believe they are violating the nature of God (albeit the poor souls are not educated to that depth, so that they could recognize the antithesis inherent in their ritual, since that would generate millions of 'Luthers') as a ritual to honor God by eating and drinking their god.
It is the nature of God that He is righteous, and not double minded changing His righteousness as if changing directions. Truth cannot contradict itself; 'in Whom there is no shadow of turning'.
When a Catholic spews that argument -God can do anything- they are exhibiting the nature of the god of catholiciism, a liar and murderer from the start. In embracing with their soul that which is contrary to the Nature of God, they serve a lesser god fabricated by the duplicitous father of that religion ... and we're not talking Peter here!
To depend upon such a false premise, that God can do anything, Catholics exhibit an ignorance of God and His Nature .. an error in dogma which is profound and deeply demonic in origin.
When satan set out to fool Eve, he started in the same way, by stating a blatant lie which he knew Eve lacked the depth of knowledge to refute. Guided by God's Spirit, the lie is obvious and blatant. But to the Catholic mind, steeped in magic thinking, the god of catholiciism can violate his own nature to change directions. Without the compass of The Holy Spirit, catholics cannot know if up is presented as down and duplicity as righteousness.
And still further, when roman catholic “tradition” is shown to be in conflict with inspired Scripture, the catholic doubles down and ignores the contradiction.
Caths attempt to deny this contradiction by arguing that the restriction against consuming blood was abrogated, (Mark 7:19; Acts 15:29) However, the ending in Mark 7:19, "This he said, making all meats clean" (ASV) is best seen as an interpretive addition, for there is nothing in the Greek for "This he said" while "making all meats clean" refers to the digestive system purging all consumed foods:
And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? (Mark 7:18-19)
And contextually this is not about food laws, but about what actually defiles a person, and rather than telling the apostles new covenant realities, years later Peter needed a dream to be convinced that all foods are clean.
Caths also try to rationalize away the related charge of away by cannibalism by arguing (https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2011/08/06/the-eucharist-a-cannibalism/) that "food goeth out into the draught, purging all meats." (Mark 7:19) years later Peter needs a dream to be convinced that all meats are clean?
1. While cannibalistic pagans like the Aztecs ate the beating hearts of victims, yet they were still eating something doomed to die while Christ, is alive, having risen from the dead. Yet Christ also was doomed to die and did die, and thus in consuming the Lord's body and blood then they are still doing what pagans did. The fact that the Lord Jesus arose does not change that.
2. The Eucharist is [imagined to be] the whole body and blood of Jesus Christ, while cannibals only take a part of their victims. However, this is a distinction without a real difference, for in either case human flesh and blood are consumed.
3. The Eucharist is [imagined to be] not just flesh but glorified flesh, yet it is still emphasized as being Christ "real" body and blood, and I believe that the Lord's resurrected body would scientifically test as actual flesh, versus a Gnostic type christ, while a literal reading of the words at the last supper do not teach transubstantiation, which preaches a christ that does not look, feel, taste, or would scientifically test as being flesh and blood, thereby denying the incarnation as Biblical defined.
4. Cannibalism is inherently violent and usually predicated on the assumption that the victim is guilty, while the Eucharist is a non-bloody re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ, whose innocent blood was shed. Yet endocannibalism does not require either killing the victim or that he be guilty, but part of the deceased body is consumed to obtain spiritual life/energy from the person who naturally died.
Satan's lie, swallowed by catholics, is that it's okay to be duplicitous since it is god changing his commandment ... the god of catholiciism has 'shadow of turning' but it's okay because he is god ... THAT is not the GOD presented in HIS WORD.
When Christ said "This is my body" he was lying
When Christ said "This is my body" he was lying
When Jesus said this is my body, He went on to say which is given for you. You want us to believe He said His body was for you to eat, to get SPIRITUAL nourishment. BUT before that foolishness is even given short shrift, you have impugned the Nature of God as duplicitous. How very foolish of you. There is no shadow of turning in GOD. He does not contradict Himself, yet your religion insists your god can change his mind because he is god so being duplicitous is okay with such a god.
When Jesus says *I am bread* do you take that literally? Is Jesus made of wheat flour?
When Jesus says, *I am the door*, do you take that literally? Is Jesus made of wood?
When Jesus says, *I am the vine* do you take that literally? Is He a plant?
He Said “I am....” or was He lying?
WRT the Eucharist being a “sacrifice”...I don’t see anywhere in Scripture that Christians are told to “offer up” the bread and wine of the Eucharist/Thanksgiving observance to God as a “re-presentation” of the sacrifice of the cross of Christ (i.e., “Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”) but rather as a remembrance and a testimony of faith in what He has done for us. Any thoughts?
Yes, I agree. Jesus said many foolish things. You are right. Nobody should believe a single word he said.
"This is my body" was a lie. Jesus was a liar.
He is the door to salvation. Literally. Wood doesn't matter
He is the vine. Literally.
You just don't get it
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.