Posted on 03/18/2018 9:02:06 PM PDT by No One Special
I must have hit a nerve - you had to call in all your familiars.
***
It’s called a ping list. We’re allowed to do that.
You don’t HAVE to read the comments, little missy.
You may call it a “ping” list, I call it a pile on, lol. But, please, don’t let me spoil your fun.
Oh, I don’t think you CAN spoil our fun. We have assurance of salvation and love to proclaim it to everyone because THEY can have 100% assurance of salvation too in our Lord Jesus.
If you don’t like it, well, that’s your business, not mine.
She knows what a ping list is, she does it all the time when she’s in high dudgeon over men wanting to avoid marrying feminist American women.
And yet you guys never give the impression of “having fun.” You all sound very bitter. Sad, as our great President might say.
You must be talking about fellow Roman religionists, I guess. Eh?
In my reply I was assuming that you are holding that (as you previously wrote) in some way, the bread is Jesus' Body, not merely a symbol of it; and that the grape juice is Jesus' Blood, not merely a symbol of it (consubstantiation).
Furthermore, I am assuming that you hold that somehow, 1 Cor. 11:24-29 proves your theory.<> My conclusion is that Paul's use of the text not only does not support your hypothesis, but that the thrust of verses 27 and 29 is directed toward exposing the spiritual blindness of a participant regarding the puros of the ordinance. So how do we resolve this?
We obviously are not going to resolve this Mexican standoff in this life, since you believe that the emblems of the Cross-death are sacraments, and I do not. I believe that the conclusion of this discussion should at this point be according to Romans Chapter 14, without further wrangling that benefits no one.
puros = my way of mistyping “purpose:
Then why are you the one throwing around insults and I’m the one grinning?
LOL.
Aaaaallright, if you say so.
At least we can part knowing our salvations aren’t in danger. Works for me.
Yeah, well, it’s hard to eat or drink a metaphor . . .
What other denomination have you seen promoted by *Prots* as the one true church?
Lutherans?
Baptists?
Methodists?
Yes, only Christians go to heaven, and religious affiliation doe snot make one Christian.
Catholics MAY be Christians. Some Catholics no doubt are, just like some Baptists are, and some Lutherans are and some Methodists are.
But just because someone wears a denominational tag does not mean by default that they are Christian.
Nor do all Christians wear denominational tags. Some Christians do not belong to (are members of) any church.
Its calked a "ping list" and some of your own have them also! But even though you may want to take get some honor for them being pinged, it had nothing to do with your post, as they were pinged before my post to you, but to whom you chose to expose your duplicity to, and continue to. Which angry name calling recourse is in lieu of an argument.
The problem is that you fail to comprehend what you admit you have difficulty doing (yet affirm the metaphysical justification of the Eucharist), for the issue is how Christ revealed Himself. In which, rather than requiring blind faith as atheists insist is required, and or being like a docetist or gnostic Christ who appears to be something physically he is not, the Divine Christ of Scripture manifestly "came in the flesh, which as said, not just looking and behaving as a man but actually being made flesh, and taking on the nature of the seed of Abraham.
Which is in contrast to Christ appearing as an inanimate object, which all tests of physicality would show as being, yet which does not actually exist, nor does Christ under that form once this non-existent host begins to show signs of decay (and we could ask why this decay must be made visible before the "Real Presence" is no longer such).
Thus was not the resurrected "handle me and see" (Luke 24:39) body of flesh and bones, which incarnated Christ is the only one of Scripture on earth, set in contrast to metaphysical ones. Nor was it a vision, or apparition, nor any other miracle of physical changes such as water being made wine, with its attendant actual testable changes, but is "another Christ" metaphysically explained as a unique miracle.
However, rejecting the metaphorical understanding, which is the only one that easily conflates with Scripture , the imposed metaphysical interpretation can only assume that what the apostles consumed at the last supper was not that of bread and wine made actual flesh, which would be what is consistent with a purely literal reading of the words at the last supper, but one in which Christ was both really present in the flesh sitting before them as well as on His way to their stomachs (as His own as well.
But "this is my body, which is broken for you" (1 Corinthians 11:24) "this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins,". (Matthew 26:28) if taken literally would naturally refer to the only Christ they knew of, whose incarnated body was integral to His identification as the promised Christ, and which was what would actually be crucified and shed blood. Once you start making the body and blood of Christ as somehow appearing as inanimate objects then you are similar to preaching a docetist or gnostic Christ who appears to be something he is not, even if they denied the Son of God ever was literally incarnated.
Of course, if you recognize "this is My body" as consistent with the abundant use of metaphorical language, in which water is called the blood of men and treated as such, being poured out unto the Lord like as that of sacrificial offerings, (2 Samuel 23:16-17) and men are called bread for Israel, (Num. 14:9) and the word of God is eaten, ((Jer. 15:16) and the bread that is actually eaten at the last supper is still called "bread," (1 Corinthians 11:26);
And rather than in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels), Acts - Rev., the Lord this being presented as a means of obtaining spiritual life, and the priests ever being charged with or shown conducting it as a primarily unique function as a offering for sin and feeding the flock thereby, NT pastors- for whom the distinctive word for priests or high priest (“hiereus” or “archiereus") are never used, being called presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) referring to those in the same office, (Titus 1:5-7 cf. Acts 20:17,28) - preaching the word is is the primary active function of pastors, (2Tim. 4:2) feeding the flock thereby.
For is the word of God that is referred to as spiritual food, as "milk" (1Cor. 3:2; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12,14) and is said to nourish souls, (1Tim. 4:6) and build them up, (Acts 20:32) and thus the primary active function of pastors is to preach the word, (2Tim. 4:2) which is how they "feed the flock." (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) Lots more here , by the grace of God, but perhaps this is too hard for you to understand like the last one was, and you prefer the elaborate metaphysical gymnastics that are necessary to explain the "plain" meaning of the words of consecration.
That was cogent and warranted.
IF you are a catholic does that mean you are therefore heaven bound? If some ... oh never mind. You will only twist anything offered to seek a way to defend the blasphemous dogmas of catholiciism. And for the record, I am certain there are Christians in Catholic churches. I am also certain being Catholic is not synonymous with being a Born Again Christian. Have you been born from above? What is your destiny according to the Promises from God?
Yes I’ve noticed you’re on every one of them, even the ones I refuse to post to!
You appear very bitter. Is it because of your militant feminist attitude?
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.