Originally posted by Singer:
Why would he tell them one thing and imply a different meaning for us
today?
Quite simple. He didn't.
Not so fast, Grant. He didn't stand there and let the apostles chew on his armpits.
He had a body and he had bread and wine. Which did He offer them to eat ?
Originally posted by Singer:
If the diciples were eating his body and blood as he handed out the bread
and wine, then why did Christ still have a body when they got done...? In
Nebraska we call
this " having your cake and eating it too" !!
First off, you fail to realize that God is omnipresent. He is everywhere.
You cannot diminish Christ. Christ is TRUE GOD and TRUE MAN, and His
two natures are permanently united. Thus, God the Son is omnipresent.
Now, taking this into account, and reading the story of the multiplication of
loaves (John 6), just before Christ commands that we eat His Flesh
and drink His Blood, it all makes quite a bit of sense. There were only so
many loaves, but suddenly, from that limited number, a virtually infinite
number arose (considering had there been infinite people, the bread would
still have satisfied them all).
You skipped over my question, Grant. You gave me a booklearned response.
I don't contest the True God, True Man, omnipresent, everywhere theory.
I still want to know why Jesus still had an intact body left after they supposedly
ate his actual body...as you preach today.
Originally posted by Singer:
No they didn't eat His body........ He was still there and intact, not bleeding,
not missing an arm when they got done eating the very thing that you
contend was his body. Am I missing the description of the word ''Actual" or
what ?
Again, you force an interpretation that does not exist in the text.
And you doubting the very being of God, that He is omnipotent, and can do anything and everything, which includes re-presenting His very Self to His disciples at the
table, even while He was standing in their presence.
I don't force an interpretation, I'm a common sense type of guy who can't understand
why Catholicism insists they are eating his actual body when any bozo knows that they
are not. How can you say that I doubt the being of God ? Re-presenting is the same as
representing and that is exactly what the bread and wine are. (Representations).
We have them in politics...they are the voice of the people, Not the people themselves;
they are the visible place-taker of the real authority. Same with the emblems.
Originally posted by Singer:
To prove YOUR views, you need to show how they ate his body when his
body was still there....uneaten .
So, what you just admitted is that your view, like mine, is unprovable, and
based only on our faith in God's Holy Word. Which makes you no more
correct than anyone else, especially since the Word of God is not subject
to individual interpretation.
Thanks for backing off a bit, Grant. I agree that our views are not provable except for how
we interpret scripture. This means that YOUR view is also not provable as you say.
That would also be the case with your early Catholic fathers....their views would be no more
on base than yours or mine. They were subject to the same plan of salvation as you and I and
they did not write the bible and therefore were not inspired writers either.
I didn't realize that faith in God and His ways depended on our level of intelligence
and understanding
I've been called ignorant, unwilling, unlearned, unintelligent and downright stupid for not
"understanding" what Catholics promote here on the internet. I'm glad you see it differently.
I agree that my understanding of Catholicism has no effect on my faith in God.
I see. Since millions don't believe, that means we are wrong. Too bad
for you that Christ predicted that would happen, when He told the Jews
that they must eat His flesh, and they said, and told Him that this was
a hard saying...who can accept it? And then they walked away. Man, that
is starting to ring some bells in modern times...
You just said your interpretation in these matters is no better than mine.
And if the ''hard saying'' was not about the flesh and blood, then Catholicism
takes a hit. Matthew 16:12 shows that Jesus was referring to the leaven of the
Pharisees and NOT of the bread.
Nor will I back down from my position to appease your desire for "rationalizing" God's
Word
I wouldn't expect you to Grant, as you think your salvation depends on it.
Singer
Why would he tell them one thing and imply a different meaning for us
today?
Quite simple. He didn't.
Not so fast, Grant. He didn't stand there and let the apostles chew on his armpits.
He had a body and he had bread and wine. Which did He offer them to eat ?
Originally posted by Singer:
If the diciples were eating his body and blood as he handed out the bread
and wine, then why did Christ still have a body when they got done...? In
Nebraska we call
this " having your cake and eating it too" !!
First off, you fail to realize that God is omnipresent. He is everywhere.
You cannot diminish Christ. Christ is TRUE GOD and TRUE MAN, and His
two natures are permanently united. Thus, God the Son is omnipresent.
Now, taking this into account, and reading the story of the multiplication of
loaves (John 6), just before Christ commands that we eat His Flesh
and drink His Blood, it all makes quite a bit of sense. There were only so
many loaves, but suddenly, from that limited number, a virtually infinite
number arose (considering had there been infinite people, the bread would
still have satisfied them all).
You skipped over my question, Grant. You gave me a booklearned response.
I don't contest the True God, True Man, omnipresent, everywhere theory.
I still want to know why Jesus still had an intact body left after they supposedly
ate his actual body...as you preach today.
Originally posted by Singer:
No they didn't eat His body........ He was still there and intact, not bleeding,
not missing an arm when they got done eating the very thing that you
contend was his body. Am I missing the description of the word ''Actual" or
what ?
Again, you force an interpretation that does not exist in the text.
And you doubting the very being of God, that He is omnipotent, and can do anything and everything, which includes re-presenting His very Self to His disciples at the
table, even while He was standing in their presence.
I don't force an interpretation, I'm a common sense type of guy who can't understand
why Catholicism insists they are eating his actual body when any bozo knows that they
are not. How can you say that I doubt the being of God ? Re-presenting is the same as
representing and that is exactly what the bread and wine are. (Representations).
We have them in politics...they are the voice of the people, Not the people themselves;
they are the visible place-taker of the real authority. Same with the emblems.
Originally posted by Singer:
To prove YOUR views, you need to show how they ate his body when his
body was still there....uneaten .
So, what you just admitted is that your view, like mine, is unprovable, and
based only on our faith in God's Holy Word. Which makes you no more
correct than anyone else, especially since the Word of God is not subject
to individual interpretation.
Thanks for backing off a bit, Grant. I agree that our views are not provable except for how
we interpret scripture. This means that YOUR view is also not provable as you say.
That would also be the case with your early Catholic fathers....their views would be no more
on base than yours or mine. They were subject to the same plan of salvation as you and I and
they did not write the bible and therefore were not inspired writers either.
I didn't realize that faith in God and His ways depended on our level of intelligence
and understanding
I've been called ignorant, unwilling, unlearned, unintelligent and downright stupid for not
"understanding" what Catholics promote here on the internet. I'm glad you see it differently.
I agree that my understanding of Catholicism has no effect on my faith in God.
I see. Since millions don't believe, that means we are wrong. Too bad
for you that Christ predicted that would happen, when He told the Jews
that they must eat His flesh, and they said, and told Him that this was
a hard saying...who can accept it? And then they walked away. Man, that
is starting to ring some bells in modern times...
You just said your interpretation in these matters is no better than mine.
And if the ''hard saying'' was not about the flesh and blood, then Catholicism
takes a hit. Matthew 16:12 shows that Jesus was referring to the leaven of the
Pharisees and NOT of the bread.
Nor will I back down from my position to appease your desire for "rationalizing" God's
Word
I wouldn't expect you to Grant, as you think your salvation depends on it.
Singer
