Uh-huh! I've been there!
Here is the house:
And here is a picture I took of the souvonier stand. Note the Turkish evil eye being sold right under Mary. They find a way to get money from everyone!
Posted on 01/28/2015 1:23:00 PM PST by RnMomof7
Well done! It’s so sad to see that Catholics don’t see that it is another gospel that they preach.
It's amazing isn't it? Not one writer thought her important enough to even record anything about her after Pentecost. Absolutely no information about her from either secular or religious writers. Yet hundreds of years later they begin to claim she was assumed into heaven. The Catholic Church even claims a "home she lived in" where they charge people to see and sell "relics" and souvenirs and that only on the word of some lady who supposedly had a "vision" some hundreds of years after. Some Catholics celebrate the feast of the dormision yet others claim they don't know if she died or not. It's beyond bizarre that people would put their eternal destiny in the faith of that organization.
And in Matthew 26:29, Luke 22:18, and Mark 14:25, Jesus clearly calls it *the fruit of the vine*.
No he isn't and neither is CB or anyone else because we are not saying that chalice was really blood like the Catholics claim it is.
It's the Catholics and Catholic church which are attributing to Jesus the sin of consumption of blood by claiming the cup was His real blood.
The text in John shows which proverbs John was referencing, so all I have to do is show that. If your faith group has a tradition that the quoted text you referenced referred to what you just taught, please list the historical group and tradition. Perhaps some of the founding fathers of the reformation taught that. To argue He could have referred to something else other than the plain text does damage to the hermeneutic, so to speak. Take the text as it is.
Also two points made there haven't been addressed in your debate even though Father made the original point to whit:
When Jesus declared all foods clean, it took effect immediately, not "after the Cross". There is nothing in the text that necessarily says otherwise.
And again, the prohibition against eating the blood isn't only under the Law. It predates the law and post dates the Law when the Holy Spirit moved the Council of Jerusalem to instruct believers to avoid eating blood.
So even if the dietary laws were changed, it wouldn't effect the consumption of blood, which always has been forbidden.
There you go. Making sense again.
Uh-huh! I've been there!
Here is the house:
And here is a picture I took of the souvonier stand. Note the Turkish evil eye being sold right under Mary. They find a way to get money from everyone!
Peter is recorded as saying 'Lord', while the 'voice' referred to GOD, although not claiming to be GOD.
I was referring to a different set of statements by Paul, but this is also a good reference to the changes that occurred after the Cross. However, the other poster was opining that Jesus had made a change regarding clean and unclean animals in Mark 7, well before the Cross. I was pointing out his error in that context. I am fully aware that once Jesus died, we were no longer under the Law, because He was the fulfillment of the Law. But at the time of the Last Supper, Jesus and the disciples were still subject to the Law of Moses.
Arthur, Arthur, Arthur, think before you post. Catholics tell us all the time that Jesus was telling people to eat His flesh and blood already when He fed the five thousand. Now your telling us that "The Mosaic Law was passing away DURING the Last Supper." You even put DURING in all caps to emphasize the point. Is leading someone into sin a sin? I do believe the Catholic Church says yes to that question don't they?
And you had the audacity to tell CA he should read the Bible sometimes.
I'm not quite sure what your post is trying to say.
Ultimately it comes down to a belief that This Earthly Organization Is Specially Spiritually Charmed.
Evangelicals aren’t comparing this to a vacuum, and shouldn’t even be comparing this to their own organizations. It is about the special blessed walk with Christ. This is what moved Luther. Luther didn’t make a fuss and eventually walk out over a bunch of abstract theory. He was positive that he had met Christ, and that Christ didn’t need and in some cases didn’t even want the doctrinal encrustations.
Sure seems to be stretching things.
A symbol makes wonderful sense in the context.
Arthur, the answer is right in the verse, though you choose to ignore it: "do this in remembrance of me." The drinking of the wine was never meant represent the actual drinking of blood, as the Catholics seem to believe; it was to remind us of the blood that Jesus spilled for us. It represents the sacrifice Christ made. You are really turning yourself inside out on this one.
Look, if you want to believe you are literally consuming the flesh and blood of Jesus, I am not going to persuade you otherwise. My only point in engaging in this colloquy was to reveal the fact that your teaching is base solely on tradition, and has no independent Scriptural support.
Remember, in reading the Bible, if there can be more than one interpretation, and one interpretation is in harmony with the rest of the Scripture, and another interpretation is in opposition to the rest of Scripture, you have to go with the interpretation that agrees with the rest of Scripture. Since your interpretation would require Jesus to violate the Law of Moses, the reasonable conclusion is that your interpretation is incorrect. You don't have to agree.
Sure we were.
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Catholics just refuse to believe it.
What do think that verse means?
Let's see. Jesus TALKED ABOUT giving us his body and blood after feeding the five thousand.
Later, at the Last Supper, he did so.
Please explain to me how TALKING about doing something, but actually DOING it later, is somehow impossible.
In their second point the use the quote from scripture ""These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink". Now please once again, explain why the apostles by the Holy Spirit do just that with their prohibition against eating blood in Acts 15.
In there next point they try to include blood in the statement by Paul about eating meat offered to idols. Paul didn't include blood in his statement.
Jesus was born under the law and any breaking of those commands would have been sin.
I see you are back to your old habit of seizing on a single word (out of hundreds) and making a snarky potshot out of it.
It’s cheap and obnoxious. And it doesn’t prove anything.
What do you think “manna” is?
In John 6, Jesus directly compares his body and manna. Those who ate the manna died. Those who eat Jesus’ body, the bread from heaven, will not die.
What a surprise. The Gospel of John and Revelation both relate the body of Jesus in the Eucharist with the manna in the desert.
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.