John 6 -- full of symbolism.

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

But he is God because God says he is.

You would say WELL Jesus is only God symbolically,

LYING again! Lying with Truth, you are! God <<is God because God says he is>>, ja; not because He (Jesus) says He is bread or wine. It is you, RC, who says (never mind <<would say>>) <<Jesus is God (only) symbolically>>.

Why spend your life to defend -- from a to z -- LIES?! Because THAT, is anti-Christ --you, Roman Catholicism!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Catholic church doesn't teach repeat sacrifice. The Catholic church also doesn't accept your prophet Ellen G White or her "Great Controversy" writings.

The Adventists faiths, SDA, Jehovah's witness, and your sda-protesting denoms.

Always depend on vilifying others. That's pathetic. And then you reinvent the wheel. Great Job figuring out Trinity is true. 1800 years after we've been saying.

...yelling, looser... pretty! Like the Jews when they accused Jesus with every LIE at their disposal or not! They will FETCH it from somewhere if it's nowhere!

I have told you time and again one thing, the TRUTH WITH CASE, you're a LIAR. You are such a lying RC that you cannot SEE how you are the one <<vilifying others>>. You cannot help to, because you're a RC thinking you do God good service. So cold blooded you'll survive hell's summers you are.

 

[utilyan]

...yelling, looser... pretty! Like the Jews when they accused Jesus with every LIE at their disposal or not! They will FETCH it from somewhere if it's nowhere!

I have told you time and again one thing, the TRUTH WITH CASE, you're a LIAR. You are such a lying RC that you cannot SEE how you are the one <<vilifying others>>. You cannot help to, because you're a RC thinking you do God good service. So cold blooded you'll survive hell's summers you are.

Calling someone liar 50 times a day doesn't make anything they say a Lie. Especially when you don't present any scripture or any evidence of truth.

I can say the bread and wine is the body and blood of Jesus Christ something I know you reject. But we don't say the sacrifice is repeated that is something we reject.

If we believed it was repeated I would have no problem telling you it is repeated even if it offends you. But simply we don't believe in the repeated sacrifice.

Insisting what we don't believe only proves weakness on your part. I can present your position have you sign off on it with approval and still smash it.

I don't have to insult you nor accuse you of anything.

You do not win a game of chess or checkers by moving the pieces for the other player.

 

[The Biblicist]

Lets assume its your way Bib,

Can I now point to the cross and say his blood shed for us is NOTHING because none of it is GOD. That Christ offering his body and blood, lord you might as well offered me some rocks and dirt.

First, you show an ignorance for "blood" and what it represents. His blood washes our conscience (Heb. 9:14) and our conscience is not tangible but spiritual. His "blood" shed for us simply means he offered up a sinless life as that is what the blood represents. If he had only shed blood from the flogging it would be worthless. If he only shed blood from the crown of thorns it would be worthless. In sacrificial terminology and meaning the "shedding of blood" means DEATH cessation of life and the life is worthless unless it was a life without blot or blemish - sinless life that was lived from birth to death.

So when Jesus says "this is my blood" it is metaphorical, representing HIS LIFE that was offered up. Your perverted abusive use of the Lord's Supper denies the sufficency of his blood - meaning HIS LIFE between birth and death - as it is that LIFE that satisfied once and for all, all the demands of the law against the sinner - paid in full. However, the Roman Catholic sacrilegious abuse of the Supper by claiming the cup is his LITERAL blood repudiates the whole gospel of Christ by denying over and over again the sufficiency of Christ's life to satisfy all the Law's demands against the sinner. You don't even have an inkling of what "the blood" of Christ means or you wouldn't abuse it by your false gospel ungodly sacraments.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But we don't say the sacrifice is repeated that is something we reject.

From the 'Catholic' Catechism, 2nd Edn., Para.1367.
The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice. 'The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.' 'And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner.....this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.'

The 'divine sacrifice' of the 'same Christ' is offered over and over again (contra Hebrews 9:25-26).

BTW, if the sacrifice is 'unbloody' it cannot be propitiatory (Hebrews 9:22).

From Vatican Council II Document No.9.
For in the sacrifice of the Mass Our Lord is immolated when 'he begins to be present sacramentally as the spiritual food of the faithful under the appearance of bread and wine.' It was for this purpose that Christ entrusted this sacrifice to the [Roman Catholic] Church.......Participation in the Lord's Supper is always communion with Christ offering himself for us as a sacrifice to the Father.

 

[Adonia]

First, you show an ignorance for "blood" and what it represents. His blood washes our conscience (Heb. 9:14) and our conscience is not tangible but spiritual. His "blood" shed for us simply means he offered up a sinless life as that is what the blood represents. If he had only shed blood from the flogging it would be worthless. If he only shed blood from the crown of thorns it would be worthless. In sacrificial terminology and meaning the "shedding of blood" means DEATH cessation of life and the life is worthless unless it was a life without blot or blemish - sinless life that was lived from birth to death.

So when Jesus says "this is my blood" it is metaphorical, representing HIS LIFE that was offered up. Your perverted abusive use of the Lord's Supper denies the sufficency of his blood - meaning HIS LIFE between birth and death - as it is that LIFE that satisfied once and for all, all the demands of the law against the sinner - paid in full. However, the Roman Catholic sacrilegious abuse of the Supper by claiming the cup is his LITERAL blood repudiates the whole gospel of Christ by denying over and over again the sufficiency of Christ's life to satisfy all the Law's demands against the sinner. You don't even have an inkling of what "the blood" of Christ means or you wouldn't abuse it by your false gospel ungodly sacraments.

First, you show an ignorance for "blood" and what it represents. His blood washes our conscience (Heb. 9:14) and our conscience is not tangible but spiritual. His "blood" shed for us simply means he offered up a sinless life as that is what the blood represents. If he had only shed blood from the flogging it would be worthless. If he only shed blood from the crown of thorns it would be worthless. In sacrificial terminology and meaning the "shedding of blood" means DEATH cessation of life and the life is worthless unless it was a life without blot or blemish - sinless life that was lived from birth to death.

So when Jesus says "this is my blood" it is metaphorical, representing HIS LIFE that was offered up. Your perverted abusive use of the Lord's Supper denies the sufficency of his blood - meaning HIS LIFE between birth and death - as it is that LIFE that satisfied once and for all, all the demands of the law against the sinner - paid in full. However, the Roman Catholic sacrilegious abuse of the Supper by claiming the cup is his LITERAL blood repudiates the whole gospel of Christ by denying over and over again the sufficiency of Christ's life to satisfy all the Law's demands against the sinner. You don't even have an inkling of what "the blood" of Christ means or you wouldn't abuse it by your false gospel ungodly sacraments.

There is nothing sacrilegious in the Roman Catholic Mass. From beginning to the end it is wholly biblical and the most perfect prayer ever offered up by man to God bar none! While the pulpit is the center of your worship service, the altar and what happened on that fateful day on Calvary are ours. Even our Eastern Orthodox brothers have sense enough to have their Divine Liturgy which corresponds closely to our Mass. Sorry, but you are completely in error on this particular issue.

 

[utilyan]

From the 'Catholic' Catechism, 2nd Edn., Para.1367.
The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice. 'The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.' 'And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner.....this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.'

The 'divine sacrifice' of the 'same Christ' is offered over and over again (contra Hebrews 9:25-26).

BTW, if the sacrifice is 'unbloody' it cannot be propitiatory (Hebrews 9:22).

From Vatican Council II Document No.9.
For in the sacrifice of the Mass Our Lord is immolated when 'he begins to be present sacramentally as the spiritual food of the faithful under the appearance of bread and wine.' It was for this purpose that Christ entrusted this sacrifice to the [Roman Catholic] Church.......Participation in the Lord's Supper is always communion with Christ offering himself for us as a sacrifice to the Father.

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice. 'The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.' 'And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner.....this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.'


Martin did you read the first sentence of what you quoted? Can you repeat for me incase we are reading something totally different.

 

[utilyan]

First, you show an ignorance for "blood" and what it represents. His blood washes our conscience (Heb. 9:14) and our conscience is not tangible but spiritual. His "blood" shed for us simply means he offered up a sinless life as that is what the blood represents. If he had only shed blood from the flogging it would be worthless. If he only shed blood from the crown of thorns it would be worthless. In sacrificial terminology and meaning the "shedding of blood" means DEATH cessation of life and the life is worthless unless it was a life without blot or blemish - sinless life that was lived from birth to death.

So when Jesus says "this is my blood" it is metaphorical, representing HIS LIFE that was offered up. Your perverted abusive use of the Lord's Supper denies the sufficency of his blood - meaning HIS LIFE between birth and death - as it is that LIFE that satisfied once and for all, all the demands of the law against the sinner - paid in full. However, the Roman Catholic sacrilegious abuse of the Supper by claiming the cup is his LITERAL blood repudiates the whole gospel of Christ by denying over and over again the sufficiency of Christ's life to satisfy all the Law's demands against the sinner. You don't even have an inkling of what "the blood" of Christ means or you wouldn't abuse it by your false gospel ungodly sacraments.

Well I would challenge your opinion with Paul's own perversion.

1 Corinthians 11

27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.


Key point is not discerning the Lord's body. That means you don't recognize it as his body.

If I believed what you believed I would have to stand and object to Paul here, citing that Paul is denying the sufficiency of the TRUE body and TRUE blood and my worthiness to this metaphorical fake holds no ground to the real deal that happened on the cross.

But Paul says if I don't eat the bread and drink this cup worthily im guilty of the real body and blood of the lord.

The only thing I would discern is this is metaphorical symbolic fake and not his body.



29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

That is plain and simple. Taking your belief I am not discerning the Lord's body. When I'm eating the bread and wine I am discerning this is not really your body.


Paul can answer "shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."

I am not guilty of the actual body and blood of the lord. No that's just some "graven image".




Here is me adopting your view:

1 corinthians10
16Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

No its not. These are just symbols. I had my communion and sharing when Jesus died on the cross. This is not the actual sharing in the body and blood of Jesus.

Bib, tell Paul he is wrong.

 

[utilyan]

If you want a good laugh read the commentaries for this verse:

1 Corinthians 10
16The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Its like roaches scattering at the light.

Maybe its communion with the symbol, and then they say well body of Christ , they are talking about the "church".




Look closely

16Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 17Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.


We partake of ONE BREAD. Jesus Christ. but If Believe what you believe, I can no longer say this.

I have my SYMBOLIC bread that is another and only symbolizes the REAL BREAD.


Se we Catholics don't partake of two breads. Just one.

You guys partake of two.


The only thing going into my mouth is JESUS CHRIST. Take your fakes away.

 

[The Biblicist]

Well I would challenge your opinion with Paul's own perversion.

1 Corinthians 11

27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.


Key point is not discerning the Lord's body.

You don't understand Paul! Paul had already dealt with this in 1 Corinthians 5:6-8 where he demonstrates that the bread used in the Jewish Passover, hence used in the Lord's Supper was to be "unleavened" as it symbolized not merely the fact that Christ was without sin, but the observing metaphorical body had removed all known sin (fornicating member). Paul told them that the "whole lump" symbolized the congregational body observing the Supper and leaven (fornicating member joined with their attitude of pride about it) had leavened the "whole lump" and they needed to repent of their pride over this sinful member and remove the member so that the "whole lump" would be "purged" of this leaven so that they would become a "NEW lump." Thus as a metaphorical "new lump" they would be qualified to observe the Lord's Supper as a congregational body, thus properly discerning the metaphorical meaning of "unleavened" bread.

To discern the Lord's Body meant to discern the symbolism of being UNLEAVENED or the removal of all KNOWN sin from the observing congregational body as a body (1 Cor. 5) and as individual members removing known sin from their own lives by repentance. The whole congregation was unfit to partake of the Supper with a KNOWN sinning member in their midst. To partake in this condition would be not to discern the Lord's body as UNLEAVENED which the congregational body metaphorically represented the body of Christ. In chapter 11 for individual members to partake of the supper with sin KNOWN TO THEM in their lives was to not discern the symbolic qualification for observing the Supper - unleavened lives.

This is what it means to fail to discern the Lord's body as represented by "unleavened" bread when the observing body or individual member observes it with KNOWN leaven of sin in the congregational body or in the individual member. So Rome does not even understand the minimal basics of the phrase "discern the Lord's Body" in the Biblical context of this statement.

Second, by literalizing what is clearly metaphorical they have not only perverted the gospel of Christ, by denying the gospel is the power of salvation and making external physical rites the power of salvation, but they have repudiated the "once for all" satisfaction made by Christ on the cross for sin, thus sanctifying the believer "ONCE for all" (heb. 10:10,14). By claiming (and that is all there is to it) the reproduction of the literal blood and literal body of Christ they are denying the once for all sufficiency of the literal body and blood of Christ on the cross.

Christ said "do this in remembrance of me" not in order to remain saved or to be saved.


Rome is guilty of failing to discern the body of Christ every time they observe the Supper because another thing that disqualifies a congregation from observing the Supper is "schism" and the leaven of false doctrine which permeates Roman Catholicism more so than any other denomination on the face of the earth.

 

[DHK]

Well I would challenge your opinion with Paul's own perversion.

1 Corinthians 11

27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

What a sad commentary you have on God's Word. Paul quotes the words of Christ verbatim without mistake. He tells us what went on in the upper room by revelation of God. And you have the gall to tell us that he has perverted the very Word of God that God Himself has given Him.

You need to repent of this, your foolishness.
Paul did not pervert anything, rather the RCC and the doctrines that you believe have been perverted.
I feel sorry for you.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice. 'The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.' 'And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner.....this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.'


Martin did you read the first sentence of what you quoted? Can you repeat for me incase we are reading something totally different.

I quoted it correctly. I believe that one of the signs of madness is to repeat the identical same thing over and over again, particularly when the thing repeated is utterly refuted by Scripture. 'For [Christ] did not enter heaven to offer Himself again and again' whether in a bloody or unbloody manner.

While the blessed virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal victim for the sins of man- not once, but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.'

J. O'Brien, The Faith of Millions, p.256.

 

[utilyan]

What a sad commentary you have on God's Word. Paul quotes the words of Christ verbatim without mistake. He tells us what went on in the upper room by revelation of God. And you have the gall to tell us that he has perverted the very Word of God that God Himself has given Him.

You need to repent of this, your foolishness.
Paul did not pervert anything, rather the RCC and the doctrines that you believe have been perverted.
I feel sorry for you.

"your foolishness."

Only a "fool" who did not read what I am responding to, would read that and conclude I must think what Paul says is a perversion.

 

[utilyan]

You don't understand Paul! Paul had already dealt with this in 1 Corinthians 5:6-8 where he demonstrates that the bread used in the Jewish Passover, hence used in the Lord's Supper was to be "unleavened" as it symbolized not merely the fact that Christ was without sin, but the observing metaphorical body had removed all known sin (fornicating member). Paul told them that the "whole lump" symbolized the congregational body observing the Supper and leaven (fornicating member joined with their attitude of pride about it) had leavened the "whole lump" and they needed to repent of their pride over this sinful member and remove the member so that the "whole lump" would be "purged" of this leaven so that they would become a "NEW lump." Thus as a metaphorical "new lump" they would be qualified to observe the Lord's Supper as a congregational body, thus properly discerning the metaphorical meaning of "unleavened" bread.

To discern the Lord's Body meant to discern the symbolism of being UNLEAVENED or the removal of all KNOWN sin from the observing congregational body as a body (1 Cor. 5) and as individual members removing known sin from their own lives by repentance. The whole congregation was unfit to partake of the Supper with a KNOWN sinning member in their midst. To partake in this condition would be not to discern the Lord's body as UNLEAVENED which the congregational body metaphorically represented the body of Christ. In chapter 11 for individual members to partake of the supper with sin KNOWN TO THEM in their lives was to not discern the symbolic qualification for observing the Supper - unleavened lives.

This is what it means to fail to discern the Lord's body as represented by "unleavened" bread when the observing body or individual member observes it with KNOWN leaven of sin in the congregational body or in the individual member. So Rome does not even understand the minimal basics of the phrase "discern the Lord's Body" in the Biblical context of this statement.

Second, by literalizing what is clearly metaphorical they have not only perverted the gospel of Christ, by denying the gospel is the power of salvation and making external physical rites the power of salvation, but they have repudiated the "once for all" satisfaction made by Christ on the cross for sin, thus sanctifying the believer "ONCE for all" (heb. 10:10,14). By claiming (and that is all there is to it) the reproduction of the literal blood and literal body of Christ they are denying the once for all sufficiency of the literal body and blood of Christ on the cross.

Christ said "do this in remembrance of me" not in order to remain saved or to be saved.


Rome is guilty of failing to discern the body of Christ every time they observe the Supper because another thing that disqualifies a congregation from observing the Supper is "schism" and the leaven of false doctrine which permeates Roman Catholicism more so than any other denomination on the face of the earth.

Lets fix the scripture to make it mean what you claim it means AND ANSWER PAUL's CHALLENGE.

1 Corinthians 10

16Is not the SYMBOL OF JESUS' BLOOD which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the SYMBOL OF JESUS' BODY which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

THE ANSWER IS: NO.


Fix this brother. Make sense of it.

Its the very thing Paul is challenging.

If you answer YES your shooting yourself in the foot. Saying the SYMBOL actually is the body/blood.

 

[The Biblicist]

You perverted the text in 1 Corinthians 11 and I demonstrated you perverted it. You can't answer and so you simply go to another text and now pervert that text as your response. You are like a JW who jumps from one text when they are exposed for their ignorance and jump to another text land then later will come back to the previous text and repeat the same proven false interpretation again. Every Catholic I have ever debated follows this same cultic routine - jump from text to text in order to escape having been contextually proven wrong. So here we go again!

Lets fix the scripture to make it mean what you claim it means AND ANSWER PAUL's CHALLENGE.

1 Corinthians 10

16Is not the SYMBOL OF JESUS' BLOOD which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the SYMBOL OF JESUS' BODY which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

THE ANSWER IS: NO.


Fix this brother. Make sense of it.

Its the very thing Paul is challenging.

If you answer YES your shooting yourself in the foot. Saying the SYMBOL actually is the body/blood.

16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Very well, I will interpret it in keeping with my position if that will make you happy:


16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion which represents the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion which represents the body of Christ?

See, a metaphor requires understanding the first noun in its most literal sense (blood, body) while the second noun represents it in some non-literal manner (cup, bread). For example "I am the vine" demands the first noun be understood absolutely literal ("I" = Jesus Christ) while the second noun represents the first noun in some non-literal sense (vine). Rome and Luther trip over common easy metaphorical use of language and come up with irrational nonsensical cannibalistic heresy.

 

[utilyan]

You perverted the text in 1 Corinthians 11 and I demonstrated you perverted it. You can't answer and so you simply go to another text and now pervert that text as your response. You are like a JW who jumps from one text when they are exposed for their ignorance and jump to another text land then later will come back to the previous text and repeat the same proven false interpretation again. Every Catholic I have ever debated follows this same cultic routine - jump from text to text in order to escape having been contextually proven wrong. So here we go again!





16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Very well, I will interpret it in keeping with my position if that will make you happy:


16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion which represents the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion which represents the body of Christ?

See, a metaphor requires understanding the first noun in its most literal sense (blood, body) while the second noun represents it in some non-literal manner (cup, bread). For example "I am the vine" demands the first noun be understood absolutely literal ("I" = Jesus Christ) while the second noun represents the first noun in some non-literal sense (vine). Rome and Luther trip over common easy metaphorical use of language and come up with irrational nonsensical cannibalistic heresy.

LMAO!

 

[The Biblicist]

LMAO!

Respond to it then! Do you think by responding with ridicule helps your case at all??? You are your own worst enemy. BTW that acronym is unbecoming of a child of God, much less one who is supposed to be representing the "true" church?????

 

[Adonia]

It's not Rome that does not understand, it's others who came on the scene over a thousand years after that do not understand and who have twisted the Scriptures, ignore and reject the the orthodox teachings of Christianity that were handed down to all Christians from the very beginning. It's not us, it's you folks who remain in a complete error as regards the Holy Scriptures, blaspheming the Holy Spirit with your anti-orthodox (Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) utterings. Wouldn't want to be in your shows on Judgement day that's for sure.

 

[utilyan]

Respond to it then! Do you think by responding with ridicule helps your case at all??? You are your own worst enemy. BTW that acronym is unbecoming of a child of God, much less one who is supposed to be representing the "true" church?????

OH YOUR SERIOUS!?


Making it up as you go along?

What a stupid translation. Did you even bother to read verse after and the implications?



You never get around to partake of the one bread, the sacrifice.

 

[The Biblicist]

It's not Rome that does not understand, it's others who came on the scene over a thousand years after that do not understand and who have twisted the Scriptures, ignore and reject the the orthodox teachings of Christianity that were handed down to all Christians from the very beginning. It's not us, it's you folks who remain in a complete error as regards the Holy Scriptures, blaspheming the Holy Spirit with your anti-orthodox (Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) utterings. Wouldn't want to be in your shows on Judgement day that's for sure.

Still waiting for a Catholic Response? If Rome understands then where is their response to 1 Cor. 11?