Posted on 06/19/2015 12:01:57 PM PDT by RnMomof7
Let's see now....Jesus said "THIS IS MY BODY"
You and Bill Clinton argue over what the meaning of the word "is" is......brilliant...(in both instances)..not
Rome wrote them down for you and you certainly can't prove them wrong....Rome wins....they got to go first!!
When I was a catholic, I believed He meant the bread was literally His body. Now that I am an ex catholic, I don't believe it at all. He meant it figuratively, because we are prohibited from drinking blood. That would be cannibalism. I am not into that. You can drink blood if you want, I won't do it. Cannibalism is evil, and I don't want to be evil. I understand things much better, now that I am an ex catholic. I am waiting for Gabriel to blow his bugle. Then we will see who has their stuff together. Have a nice forever. I KNOW I will. 😇 You can take that to the bank. 🏦
> has nothing to do with rightly dividing the word<
Well, you “rightly divide” it your way and I’ll “rightly divide” it mine.
There are lots of false mystery religions out there. 😇
You didn’t finish my quote. I said no as well, only for different reasons. You’re answer to my post sounds a lot like the man in the synagogue “thanking” God he was not like the other man.
Well you can follow Paul and I’ll follow Jesus. That argument doesn’t make sense. Well you can just tear out all the books in the Bible that weren’t written by Paul. I think I’ll hang on and follow all of it.
>Who gets to JUDGE whether this is EVIL or not?
Li’l popettes?<
Apparently you do.
We all get hung up on what ‘Jesus said’. So let’s see what he said and what it means to me...
Jesus said, ‘this is my body’
Jesus said, ‘this is my blood’
Catholics talk about Transubstiation, Protestants about Transliteration. So let’s look at what he said...
He did not say ‘this becomes my body’, He did not say, ‘this represents my body’. He said this IS my body, this IS my blood.
Take it for what he said. It does not become, it does not represent, It is!
There is now cannibalism in that.
>If Pete got this ‘honor’ from Christ; where is the expected uproar from the others who got left out?
There wasn’t ANY of them so ‘holy’ that they’d accept this without murmuring!<
You seem to be very angry. Why?
Matthew 10:14Luke 9:5
Mark 6:11
Matthew 10:14
Take it for what he said. It does not become, it does not represent, It is!
Where is it that Jesus told apostles or Catholic priests to turn bread into Jesus' body??? Why did Jesus call the supposed transformed blood the fruit of the vine??? And Paul call the bread, bread???
There is no cannibalism in a metaphor, that is true. And no need to say “represents,” either. Everybody already knows that’s what a metaphor does, sort of, except it’s really richer than that. But “A is B” is a plain old ordinary direct metaphor, and in any other case where folks didn’t have a dog in the fight, it wouldn’t even be an argument.
Peace,
SR
It sounded to me like you were making an equivalence between Baptists and Catholics, as in, if we get a bad pastor, it doesn’t invalidate the church, thus Catholics can have a bad pope without invalidating their church. If I misunderstood you on that, I’m sorry.
But if I did understand you correctly, that’s a poor argument for a bad pope. The structure is different. Baptists are not claiming to have a human “Vicar of Christ.” Catholics do make that claim. We’re not claiming to be better than y’all. We just don’t have to back up the claim that you do have to back up. Our Vicar of Christ really is the Holy Spirit, and He is guaranteed to be sinless, no matter how badly any one of us non-Vicars messes up.
It’s a big difference. I’m sorry it offends you, but it’s what Scripture teaches, so how can we dissent from it without sinning?
Peace,
SR
Asked and answered in previous discussion. The short form is:
1) that’s a circular argument. You are entering as evidence of non-metaphoric usage, passages that most certainly DO meet the criteria for metaphor, and which others before us and well before the Reformation have read as metaphor. Logically, you can’t use them as evidence when they are the very passages you are trying to prove something about. That’s called begging the question, baking a predetermined answer into the formulation of the question.
2) It doesn’t matter whether there are any other examples besides those that describe the Lord’s Supper. Metaphor does not rely on a particular conjugation of verb or the presence or absence of possessive pronouns. It is a nearly universal function of human psychology. All that is needed is a comparison of two domains not normally associated with each other. The verb of being “to be” links the two domains, and the mind starts looking for the metaphorical relationship.
A simple example in English: A proud Grampa looks at his beloved granddaughter and says “This is my little angel.” Does any reasonable listener think he is speaking of a small, non-human, angelic being? Or do they know, from the combination of physical and verbal cues, he is using a metaphor to describe his wonderful granddaughter? Of course they know.
But somehow, when we come to this passage, even though the same structure is there, the same kind of physical and verbal cues, we get this big fight. It makes no sense. I truly believe no one would find this the least bit controversial if there were not some deep seated resistance to the lesson of the metaphor.
Peace,
SR
Amen bro.
Iscool, you are correct. As you say, He never said. And also, if a few of us gather together in our home we do not need clergy to do any kind of ‘consecration’ on the bread and the wine to celebrate communion with him. He took bread and blessed it, He took the cup and gave thanks...we do that...in remembrance of Him.
Your comment: “He did not say ‘this becomes my body’, He did not say, ‘this represents my body’. He said this IS my body, this IS my blood.
Take it for what he said. It does not become, it does not represent, It is!
There is now cannibalism in that.”
Well at least One Protestant can read the actual words, but has a faulty analysis.
From Catholic answers:http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/are-catholics-cannibals
Miriam-Webster defines cannibalism as:
1. The usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being.
2. The eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same kind.
Cannibalism implies here the actual chewing, swallowing, and metabolizing of flesh and blood either after or during the killing of a human being; at least, if we stick to definition #1.
Catholics do not do any of this in the Eucharist. Though Christ is substantially present—body, blood, soul and divinity—in the Eucharist, the accidents of bread and wine remain. Here it is important to define terms. When the Church teaches the bread and wine at Mass are transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, we have to understand what this means. The word, transubstantiation, literally means “transformation of the substance.” “Substance” refers to that which makes a thing essentially what it is. Thus, “substance” and “essence” are synonyms. For example, man is essentially comprised of body, soul, intellect, and will. If you remove any one of these, he is no longer a human person. The accidents or accidentals would be things like hair color, eye color, size, weight, etc. One can change any of these and there would be no change in the essence or substance of the person.
In the Eucharist, after the priest consecrates the bread and wine and they are, in fact, transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord, our Lord is then entirely present. Neither bread nor wine remains. However, the accidents of bread and wine (size, weight, taste, texture) do remain. Hence, the essential reason why Catholics are not guilty of cannibalism is the fact that we do not receive our Lord in a cannibalistic form. We receive him in the form of bread and wine. The two are qualitatively different.
Your comment: “Jesus is not bound by catholic dictates.”
The Catholic teaches us the Word of God and has been true to His teachings - not the other way as you suggest. Perhaps it is the protestors that that do not accept the word of God?
Jesus said his Church would be “the light of the world.” He then noted that “a city set on a hill cannot be hid” (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. It must have characteristics that clearly identify it and that distinguish it from other churches. Jesus promised, “I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return.
Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. (Most of today’s Protestant churches are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.)
Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history.
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.