Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Titanites
Where did I say that?

By stating that Peter is alive in heaven, you imply that is due to his partaking of communion. After all, the very same verses which you use to defend the Catholic tradition of Transubstantiation are the ones which also state that eternal life is granted by partaking of communion. Here, let me show you.

[53] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. [54] Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. [57] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. [58] This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. - Jhn 6:53-58 KJV

So if Peter, who we both know took communion from Christ's own hand, is alive in heaven and the verses above are to be taken literally, as the Catholic tradition of Transubstantiation states that they are, then his status as being alive in heaven are a direct result of his taking communion.

Conversely, because Judas did not take communion (remember, he left before Christ held the first Communion), by these very same verses we can deduce that Judas is not alive.

However, because we know that Christ told us that the rich man lifted up his eyes in hell and was able to see the beggar being comforted, the rich man was alive in hell and being tormented. The problem is, though, that the rich man never took communion so how is he still alive even after dying?

314 posted on 06/17/2011 8:46:25 AM PDT by paladin1_dcs (Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies ]


To: paladin1_dcs
By stating that Peter is alive in heaven, you imply that is due to his partaking of communion.

I didn't imply anything.

After all, the very same verses which you use to defend the Catholic tradition of Transubstantiation

I didn't do a defense of Transubstantiation.

The problem is, though, that the rich man never took communion so how is he still alive even after dying?

Catholics, when talking about being alive, are referring to being alive in Christ. Anyone in hell is not alive in Christ.

315 posted on 06/17/2011 8:56:44 AM PDT by Titanites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson