[PugetSoundSoldier]

Yes, your dogma. Considering you refuse to acknowledge the clear explanation of bieng “born again” that Christ gave - just a verse after your cherry-pick - there is no way you will ever accept any Biblical explanation of why the Last Supper is symbolic, not literal.

Those with an open mind will accept that both interpretations are valid; both traditions - transubstantiation and symbolism - lay equal claim. Meaning both positions are positions of dogma.

And those with an open mind will understand that it is a relatively minor point since Christ does not make communion a requirement to salvation.

[Petronski]

...there is no way you will ever accept any Biblical explanation of why the Last Supper is symbolic, not literal.

Why would a Catholic accept such lies?

[Petronski]

...Christ does not make communion a requirement to salvation.

Except for John 6.

[Petronski]

Those with an open mind will accept that both interpretations are valid; both traditions - transubstantiation and symbolism - lay equal claim. Meaning both positions are positions of dogma.

There can be only one truth.

[papertyger]

Yes, your dogma. Considering you refuse to acknowledge the clear explanation of bieng “born again” that Christ gave...

If you think Christ is "explaining clearly" in John 3, you can not distinguish reality from rhetoric.

Now, if you are giving your interpretation the same authority of actual scripture, we have nothing to talk about.

I am content to rely on the words of Christ in the bible, not some interpretation contrived with no other goal than undermining the orthodox Catholic teaching.

[papertyger]

Those with an open mind will accept that both interpretations are valid

But only one of them is authoritative.