Featured John 6 -- full of symbolism.

We both agree your Eucharist is FAKE, not the body and blood of Jesus.

 

Still no response to my exposition of 1 Corinthians 11 and the phrase "discern the body". I don't think you can respond and so your only refuge is more insults.

It was not a translation but an interpretation. Isn't that what you asked for???

16 The LITERAL cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion THAT REPRESENTS blood of Christ? The LITERAL bread which we break, is it not the communion THAT REPRESENTS the body of Christ?
17 For we being many are REPRESENTATIVELY one bread , even one metaphorical body: for we are all partakers of that one LITERAL bread.

You asked to harmonize our position with this text. There you go. Again THIS IS NOT A TRANSLATION but exactly what you asked for an INTERPRETATION that harmonizes our position.

So we do partake of the LITERAL cup and we do eat of the LITERAL bread but the communion is not with LITERAL BLOOD or LITERAL FLESH but with elements that REPRESENT his blood and flesh in a metaphorical remembrance of the cross as a finished work.

Moreover this harmonizes with the context of eating food offered to idols. Paul says the food is neither good or bad in and of itself. However, when a person says that food had been offered up to idols, then in the conscience of that person it REPRESENTS the demons it was offered up to. So they enter REPRESENTATIVELY into communion with demons by eating the the food. However, the food does not literally turn into demons when they eat of it.

19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.
22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
23 ¶ All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth.
25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:
26 For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof.
27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.
28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof:
29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?
30 For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?

So it is your interpretation that will not fit the immediate context. The food only REPRESENTS the demons (they worship as god) according to the conscience of demon worshippers, not according to any literal or transubstantiation of the food itself. The believer is free to eat that food because the conscience of the believer does not identify it with representing demons. Hence, the food does not transform into the literal gods it was offered up to. However, if a person whose conscience does view the food as representative of demons sees and says something to you, then the child of God is not to eat it, not because it is demonic in any sense, but only because it is viewed that way by the person seeing you eat it. Hence, the food is only REPRESENTATIVE rather than LITERALLY transformed.

 

What an amazing basis for authority? Like Laurel and Hardy both agreeing they only say and do serious things(lol)!

 

Is the RC cookie abomination unleavened, or is it leavened bread?

 

Too terribly blasphemous to read one more time.

I find out daily why hell for the ungodly will be never-ending. Before you will be thrown in you will admit in the presence of God and the angels in heaven you have always, perfectly understood.

 

1 Corinthians 11

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


No.


Scripture says exactly what it says without having add and rewrite the whole thing backwards.

It even tells you if you don't discern the lord's body IE. RECOGNIZE the body you would be guilty against the body of blood of Jesus.




1 Corinthians 11

26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

What bread? ANY bread RATHER then "THIS BREAD" There is no particular bread how can there if Bread itself is the symbolic memory a sign to the real thing?

This verse is nonsense with a symbolic bread.


For example who's the guy who wrongly discerns bread not being bread? Non-believer eats your bread he correctly discerns it as just bread.

There is no damnation Paul warns about after all its just bread and wine.


27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the NOT JESUS' body and NOT JESUS' blood of the Lord.

You either are offending Jesus Christ to damnation or not.


Give us an example who eats bread and wine unworthily in light that everyone says its just bread and wine and not really the body and blood of Jesus.

There isn't even a sin to commit here if you wanted to, after all you insist its only bread and wine.

 

This is not my interpretation but your own twisted interpretation of my position. The bread is LITERAL but what it REPRESENTS is the body of Christ. The cup is LITERAL but its content represents the blood of Christ. One literally drinks of the cup and one literally eats the bread but what is drunk from out of the literal cup represents his blood and the bread which is literally eaten represents his body.

My interpretation would read the text as follows:

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this LITERAL bread, and drink of this LITERAL cup of the Lord, in a literal state of unworthiness shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord as represented by the bread and cup.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him literally eat of that bread, and literally drink of that cup.
29 For he that literally eateth and literally drinketh in a literal state of unworthiness, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning what the Lord’s body as represented in the unleavenedd bread means.

However, your biggest problem is back in 1 Corithians 10 where Paul compares communion with false gods THROUGH FOOD just as he compares communion with God THROUGH FOOD. The communion with false Gods through food does not transform the food into substance of demons and neither does the communion with the true God through food transform the food into substance of God.

Your interpretation simply breaks down and fails the contextual comparison.

However, my interpretation perfectly fits the comparison. The communion through food with demons is only REPRESENTED by the food just as the communion through food with God is only REPRESENTED by the food. In both cases there is no change of substance with either food with regard to communion. So again your interpretation breaks down and fails the context.

No, your twisted interpetation creates the nonsense. The overall contextual idea is clear and Paul simply means "For as often as ye literally eat this bread - unleavened bread, and drink this cup, wine, ye SHEW by representation the Lord's death till he come.

More nonsense created by irrationalism. Who said anything about anyone not discerning bread "not being bread"??? Not me! This is your irrational perversion of my position. He is not discerning the metaphorical meaning of "unleavened" bread as requiring complete purging of known sin before literally eating it.

More irrational nonsense created out of your pure imagination and absolute perversion of my position. Who said it is the "NOT JESUS....NOT JESUS". There is no denial it is Jesus blood and Jesus body but the issue is whether it is LITERALLY or METAPHORICALLY Jesus body and blood. Just as it is not question that "I am the door" thus Jesus IS the door, but the issue is whether the door is Jesus literally or figuratively. Any fool can look at wine in a cup and unleavened bread and see it is LITERAL wine and LITERAL bread - that takes no imagination, just common sense, common sense Rome does not have a bit of.

AGain you pervert our position to make your argument. I doubt you can find any competent Bible interpreter that would deny that "leaven" is used consistently by Christ to refer to false doctrine or sin as his uses are explicit and obvious. Thus if the bread being used is "unleavened" bread then metaphorically that represents Christ is without sin, without false doctrine, and Paul explicitly applies it to the congregational body eating that bread and says "YE ARE" that lump (1 Cor. 5:6-8). They are not LITERALLY that lump but that lump represents the congregational body of Christ partaking of the bread. Hence, their MORAL STATE must equal the SYMBOLISM of "unleavened" bread in order to harmonize the moral state of the congregational body with an "unleavened" lump. It is simple to anyone who understands the common figurative use of leaven in the Bible.

However, in order for the congregational body to comply with the figure of "unleavened" bread so they can be an "unleavened" lump or "new lump" they must first purge KNOWN sin from their midst before literally eating that "unleavened bread" (1 Cor. 5:5-12).

 

In which Baptist church's do the women cover their heads while attending services? As for Rome's response, utiyan has been more than sufficient in responding with the correct teaching of the Holy Catholic Church. It is your failure to understand this teaching and instead continue believing in your error filled interpretation.

 

You chime in with mere assertions but never provide contextual based evidence to prove your position or to disprove my position and so your assertions are simply that - assertions without value. Utiyan cannot respond without distorting my position and habitually ignores the contextual based evidence I set before him by either changing the subject or perverting my position, thus building a straw man so that he can burn. BTW our churches the women do wear head coverings and so much for another straw man argument.

I am still waiting for an honest explanation for the Biblical evidence I have placed before him that is not dependent upon dishonestly perverting my position or the evidence I have provided. So far, the only thing Utiyan has excelled in is stooping to the level of insults rather than honest dialogue.I guess that is what Catholics must excel in since they can't handle contextual based evidence that repudiates their doctrines?

For example, in 1 Corinthians 10 I have demonstrated that communion with God through food is compared to communion with demons through food and in neither case is the food transformed into anything different than food. The food in both cases REPRESENTS the deity which is being communed with and nothing more. Paul says the child of God can go ahead and eat the food offered to idols, and so the food used for communion with demons is not transformed in order to serve as a means of communion with demons any more than the bread and wine is transformed into anything other than bread and wine to commune with God. Therefore, your doctrine of transubstantiation fails in this context. It fails in the context of 1 Cor. 5 and it fails in the context of 1 Corinthians 11 as I have demonstrated. Utiyan must PERVERT my position in order to escape my interpretation of what it means to fail to discern the Lord's body as REPRESENTED by "unleavened" bread. Anyone discerning the reprensentative nature of "UNLEAVENED" bread would know that you cannot observe the Lord's supper with KNOWN LEAVEN/SIN in the personal life of the member (1 Cor. 11) or publicly known sin in the membership of the congregation partaking of the supper (1 Cor. 5). Your pagan theory of transubstantiation fails in 1 Corinthians as it fails in John 6 and fails in Matthew 26. The only response from Utiyan thus far is PERVERT my position or ATTACK my person with insults. Surely the so-called "TRUE" church can do better than that????

 

"There is no denial it is Jesus blood and Jesus body"

Metaphoric means it is NOT. If this cup of coffee symbolizes my blood metaphorically. that doesn't make it my blood. I can metaphorically have everything on earth represent Jesus that does make everything Jesus.

27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the NOT JESUS' body and NOT JESUS' blood of the Lord.

The point I made and your agreeing too it despite not wanting to. Is there is no Jesus to offend because there is no Jesus.

Offence to bread and wine is always just bread and wine.


The penalty Paul says for not recognizing the body of Christ is damnation for insulting the actual body and blood of Jesus.

This doesn't work with your system. Because the penalty there is no penalty for recognizing bread as just bread and any insult to the bread is only insult to the bread.


Lets say you are having communion BIB, you have your crackers and juice. I walk in eat it and drink it just Like Crackers and Juice because that's what you insist it is.

Have I committed a wrong here?



Some guy walks in your house throws a banana. That's not a sin on its own, is it? And if he throws any bread?

 

Metaphoric does not mean the bread is not bread or the wine is not wine. Metaphoric means the bread is not literally Christ's body and the wine is not literally Christ's blood. Metaphoric means the LITERAL bread REPRESENTS Christ's body and the LITERAL wine REPRESENTS Christ's blood.

However, your oxymoronic perversion of my interpretation has me denying the wine is literal wine and the bread is literal bread.

Moses was guilty of not discerning Christ when he smote the rock the second time - not that the rock was literally Christ (1 Cor. 10:4) but was only metaphorically Christ. For smiting that rock he was not allowed into the promised land. He failed to recognize and failed to be consistent with what the LITERAL rock represented - Christ! By smiting the rock again he denied that the first smiting of the rock (thus symbolic smiting of Christ) was sufficient, thus in type he denied the sufficiency of the gospel of Christ and Christ's death once and for all). Likewise, with the unleavened bread. Paul tells you plainly the unleavened bread represented the CONGREGATIONAL BODY OF CHRIST AT CORINTH as well as the physical body of Christ in 1 Cor. 5:6-8 - "YE ARE....Christ our passover..". Leaven is a common symbol used by Christ for false doctrine and sin. Therefore, in abusing the symbol one is abusing Christ, just as Moses abused the rock, he abused Christ by MISREPRESENTATION.

First we use home made baked unleavened bread and wine. Second, you are not a member of our congregation and so you can't observe it with us. Third, if you were a member and you ate of those elements in a moral condition that violated what those elements represent, then yes you would be guilty of failing discern Christ as represented by those elements.