Catholics Visiting The Baptist Forum Part 2

[Hollow Man]

I saw a recording of an RC communion where slices of bread was used insteada wafers. When the people ate the bread, it remained bread, simple as THAT !

So, what happens to "Jesus" when Catholics' bodies process all the nutrients out of the Jesus cracker and it becomes waste? Do they believe the waste is Jesus, too?

 

[Hollow Man]

Ummmmmmm, I already gave you Biblical examples.

Yeah, I get that you think you gave us examples, but I wasn't referring to the verses you think were examples, but to the source for examples you insist he show you.

Let’s review . . .

In 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, Paul speaks to the reality of the Eucharist and the severity of the consequences to those who take this lightly:

“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.”

This is pretty harsh language for something that you Protestants claim is only a symbol.

[edited to read: You are taking these verses out of context]

You need to be more Christlike . . .

Yes, we all do.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 4:55 PM Pacific.

 

[MarysSon]

So, what happens to "Jesus" when Catholics' bodies process all the nutrients out of the Jesus cracker and it becomes waste? Do they believe the waste is Jesus, too?

It remains the Body and Blood of Christ as long as the appearances of bread and wine exist.

Once they are ingested and go down into your stomach – the appearances of bread and wine no longer exist.

The same thing happens with everything you eat and drink.
Didn’t you ever take a biology course??

 

[utilyan]

Trust God that he has switched his law and now wants people to eat human flesh and drink human blood?
Face it. Roman Catholicism has it wrong.

He switched EYE FOR AN EYE . He switched murder to just looking at one with hatred. He switched adultery with just looking at someone with lust.

This is common sense, You state he is being symbolic. Well then tell us of what, what is the symbolism, And it doesn't hold up for something where 100% of your DISCIPLES have a problem with it and 96% choose to leave.

I bet even in your own congregation the symbolism has never been a 96% deal breaker, There is nothing disagreeable from sugar coating what Jesus Christ actually said.

Is it a deal breaker in the Catholic church? INDEED look where you are! It is troublesome. Even the ridicule is plenty of times word for word "HOW COULD JESUS ACTUALLY GIVE US HIS FLESH AND BLOOD?"

52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

You sound EXACTLY LIKE THEM!

 

[utilyan]

I already DID-where Jesus introduced Communion, He picked up some bread & some drink that was already there, & called them His flesh & blood-while they remained bread & drink, with Jesus having no wounds, missing flesh, etc. And, He said, "Do this IN REMEMBRANCE of Me."

Even this command is not completed by you. He directs exactly how to be remembered. But you chose different means -->scripture.

We do communion on the command Jesus said do this. Its the on going command. We do it for the same reason those in the bible do communion.

You do not share the same reason. You don't do it because Jesus says nor because the church does it, but because the bible reports the church doing it you are but a mere mockery a wannabe of the real deal.

 

[Hollow Man]

It remains the Body and Blood of Christ as long as the appearances of bread and wine exist.

Once they are ingested and go down into your stomach – the appearances of bread and wine no longer exist.

So then it's not really Jesus, it's just bread and wine.

The same thing happens with everything you eat and drink.
Didn’t you ever take a biology course??

Yes, I did. That's why I'm not a moron who believes Jesus is a cracker.

 

[utilyan]

So then it's not really Jesus, it's just bread and wine.



Yes, I did. That's why I'm not a moron who believes Jesus is a cracker.

1 Corinthians 11

29For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.

Then you fail to judge the body rightly, only judging it to be bread.

Or take this as a challenge, give us an example one one who doesn't judge the body.

 

[Hollow Man]

1 Corinthians 11

29For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.

Then you fail to judge the body rightly, only judging it to be bread.

Or take this as a challenge, give us an example one one who doesn't judge the body.

Not what the text says.

 

[37818]

And what part of "This IS my body" and "This IS my blood do you NOT understand??

Jesus used metaphor. Jesus did not say that the bread was actually His body or what was in the cup was actually His blood. There was language to use, which is not metaphor, which was not used.

 

[37818]

. . . and pouring since the time of the Apostles in the FIRST century.

Where? Nowhere is pouring used for the immerision (baptism) in the New Testament.

Also you did not answer my two questions.

 

[37818]

Not good enough.

Anybody can claim that their group goes back to the early centuries of the Church. You can align yourself with all sorts of early heretic groups. However - the plain fact is that the Catholic Church is the ONLY Church with an unbroken line of Apostolic Succession.

YOUR sect can’t trace itself back in an unbroken line.

Game over.

So am I to understand that you admittedly deny the sole Apostolic authorithy of the New Testament documents.

 

[MarysSon]

Yeah, I get that you think you gave us examples, but I wasn't referring to the verses you think were examples, but to the source for examples you insist he show you.

[edited to read: You are taking these verses out of context]

Yes, we all do.

TRANSLATION:
"I asked for Scriptural proof - and all you could give me was . . .Scriptural proof!"

My point exactly . . .

 

[MarysSon]

So am I to understand that you admittedly deny the sole Apostolic authorithy of the New Testament documents.

Can you point me to the post where I made this claim?

 

[MarysSon]

Where? Nowhere is pouring used for the immerision (baptism) in the New Testament.

Also you did not answer my two questions.

FALSE.

I showed you where pouring is prescribed in the FIRST century document, The Didache.

On the other hand, YOU can't show me ONE Biblical example of full immersion Baptism . . .

 

[Hollow Man]

TRANSLATION:
"I asked for Scriptural proof - and all you could give me was . . .Scriptural proof!"

My point exactly . . .

You're being dishonest again. You didn't ask for scriptural proof. You said:

Then do us a favor and produce ONE SINGLE Early Church teaching to that effect.

Show me ONE writing from the Early Church that agrees with the Protestant assertion that the Eucharist was merely symbolic.

You asked for the words of men, not the word of God.

Yes - I'm showing you that your Protestant understanding of the Eucharist is a 16th century invention.

You've claimed it, but you haven't shown it.

The Early Church unanimously held to the Catholic position . . .

Don't care if they did. We get our doctrine from scripture, not from what other people do.

Try to stay focused here . . .

You can insult me all you like, and the moderators can let you get away with it all they like, but the bottom line is that your pagan, child molesting cult cannot save you.

 

[MarysSon]

So then it's not really Jesus, it's just bread and wine.

Yes, I did. That's why I'm not a moron who believes Jesus is a cracker.

I never said Jesus was a “cracker”.
I said that the “cracker” is the Body of Christ.

If a doctor removed your appendix and held it up – are YOU now an appendix??
NO – that appendix is part of YOU.

Try to stay focused here . . .

 

[MarysSon]

You're being dishonest again. You didn't ask for scriptural proof. You said:

You asked for the words of men, not the word of God.

Yes - I'm showing you that your Protestant understanding of the Eucharist is a 16th century invention.

The Early Church unanimously held to the Catholic position . . .

 

[Particular]

Again with the asinine “State Controlled” moniker.

Any chance of you ever providing evidence as to which state??

I didn’t think so . . .

As for your claim and “some” monks burned Scripture – EVIDENCE, please.
Names??
Dates??
Anything??

I can just as easily make an equally-impotent claim that “some” Baptists were involved in the JFK assassination . . .

Roman Empire
Perhaps you don't know history.

 

[37818]

Can you point me to the post where I made this claim?

You made clam from an early second century document The Didache for non immerion immersion. Not a genuine Apostolic document.