Mary Ann Collins (A Former Catholic Nun)

No, you have your logic backwards. Let's go through it again.
Catholics teach: the bread represents the body of Christ.
Jesus said: "This is my body" In saying that Catholics believe that the bread IS the body.
The question here is: Did Jesus mean that the bread represented his body, or was his actual literal body, as the Catholics claim.

I used Carson's picture to point out the fallacy of your (the Catholic's) teaching.
Carson said (about his picture): This is Fr. Stan.
Was it Fr. Stan or not.
No, it was not. It was a pictre, a representative of him. It was not the real Fr. Stan. To say so would be lying, deceptive at the very least. If it isn't lying, then Carson is simply using the same figure of speech that Jesus used and has no right to say that the bread and wine are literally the body and blood of Christ. Those are literal words of Christ, just as the literal words of Carson were "this is Fr. Stan. Both were symbolic. If both were telling the truth, then both were using a picture. Carson could only be telling the truth if he admits that the bread and wine are representative of the the body and blood of Christ. Either both are representative, or both are not. You can't have it both ways. Either Christ is lying or Carson is lying, which is it?
DHK

 

Simple question for you, DHK: Could Jesus have turned bread and wine into His Body and Blood if He willed it to be so? Yes or No, please.

 

Either both Carson and Jesus are God, or both are not. You can't have it both ways.

 

Lets be fair and use our 'self evident' common sense. DHK suggests that the 'disciples' of Jesus knew He was only being symbolic. The text is literal. This can be seen both ways with a little bending here and there.

The answer to me is obvious. On such a very core element of worship as the Eucharist, turn to the course of action that the early Christians actually followed, who did not merely play on the trickery of words, but recievd their gospel and worship traditions from the Apostles. They uniformly taught the literal understanding, which is fine by me, because the text is also literal.

It is self-evident, common sense, that all the churches could not have fell into completey 'uniform' error on such a core point of worship. It is unbelieveable that there was no controversy over somethign like this, when Irenaus wrote hundreds of pages of against heretical teachings.

For 1500+ years this worship and understanding was evident, and not invented by Constantine. Now 1500 years later, wham bam! - New major truth here...and I am supposed to just believe this based on some metaphorical theory, coming from those who have left the Church, out on their own, re-inventing doctrines?

There is no evidence that any early Christians believed this to be symbolic. Start a thread, sounds like we are ready to do this one again.

 

No, I understand what you're saying. YOU have it backwards. Let me illustrate:

1. Carson points to a picture.
1. Jesus points to some bread.

2. Carson says "this is Fr. Stan"
2. Jesus says "this is my body"

3. DHK thinks "Carson is being symbolic".
3. DHK thinks "Jesus is being symbolic".

4. DHK then says "Carson, don't lie to us."
4. DHK then must say "Jesus, don't lie to us."

The place where your whole argument breaks down is that Carson did not mean that the picture was the real, literal, physical Fr. Stan, and you knew it, yet you said he was lying anyway.

Unless, of course, Jesus wasn't simply using a figure of speech in the first place, while Carson was.

Logically, how does Carson's "symbolic" words about "this is Fr. Stan" prove Christ was also being symbolic about "this is my body"? Why doesn't Carson's "symbolic" words about "this is Fr. Stan" also then prove God was also being symbolic about "this is my beloved Son"? Carson's words are not the filter by which we interpret scripture.

You're assuming they both used the same figure of speech, to prove they both used the same figure of speech. The logic doesn't work.

 

Good point. The alternative, as Mark Shea points out, is to believe that the apostles and disciples believed so strongly in the faith given them by Christ that they died for it, but at the same time they immediately and completely botched it up.

 

No. There are some things that God cannot do.
God cannot lie. Scripture makes that clear.
God cannot do anything that is against His nature to do so.
God will not go against His Word or His promises.
God will not clone Himself or make a duplicate of himself, like you are implicating--it is against His nature to do so.
When He said "This is my body" He was already in His body. The implications of this statement:

1. Cannibalism.
2. Cloning
3. Eating flesh and blood--strictly prohibited in both O.T. and N.T. (Acts 15)

Clearly Christ would not go against His Word, against His nature, against common sense.
DHK

 

No. There are some things that God cannot do.
God cannot lie. Scripture makes that clear.
God cannot do anything that is against His nature to do so.
God will not go against His Word or His promises.
God will not clone Himself or make a duplicate of himself, like you are implicating--it is against His nature to do so.
When He said "This is my body" He was already in His body. The implications of this statement:

1. Cannibalism.
2. Cloning
3. Eating flesh and blood--strictly prohibited in both O.T. and N.T. (Acts 15)

Clearly Christ would not go against His Word, against His nature, against common sense.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]But it's OK for God to symbolically do these things that are so evil that He cannot do them in actuality?

The cloning argument is bogus and silly -- suggest you drop that one right away!

BTW, what is your definition of "cannibalism"? What flesh and blood are we forbidden from eating?

 

1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

It was bread, as the Word says it was, and wine or juice, as is also implied here. These two elements were symbolic of the Lord's death, as it says in this one verse. We do remember the Lord's death. We don't eat Christ; we remember Him.

 

You mean like becoming one of His own lowly creatures, and then letting His other lowly creatures kill Him?

Do you really think Christianity is a religion of common sense?!

 

I'm sorry John 3v36, posting this propaganda frankly does nothing except polarize people to your posts. They see your post, they blow right by it because you don't challenge anyone to think, you just cut and paste that stuff off of some web site. In case your slow, Catholics here don't believe that stuff

How about trying this one for more responses. Cut and paste some of that stuff, and then, just like we ask fifth graders to do in school, put it in your own words, and back it up with facts.

If you don't engage our minds, you'll just engage our boredom. Your posts are getting real boring. Notice DHK's posts. Similar in nature to yours, but he actually gets lot of responses. Why?

 

Christ would not go against common sense? That was a good one, DHK. Jesus Christ is God. He can do miracles. God can do anything. Remember the water into wine. It was real wine. It didn’t just look like wine. It didn't represent wine. The water became the finest wine. This first miracle went against common sense. “… we walk by faith, not by sight…” --2 Corinthians 5:7

God Bless

 

Is there a policy about repeatedly posting material of suspect veracity John? I'm kinda new here, but I would have expected a Christian board to have relatively high standards for citations.

 

1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

It was bread, as the Word says it was, and wine or juice, as is also implied here. These two elements were symbolic of the Lord's death, as it says in this one verse. We do remember the Lord's death. We don't eat Christ; we remember Him. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you think you could please answer the question? You didn't answer it.

 

Gee, Kathryn, I suppose next you'll be telling us that Christ didn't stay dead, but that he actually rose from the dead! Wow! Don't you Christians have any common sense?!

 

At some point you may want to save yourself (and us) a lot of time by just posting "ibid" whenever the urge to celebrate your freedom from bondage overcomes you...