Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

None of what you are saying here necessitates a literal interpretation. As I keep saying, you are making non-sequiturs.

---

No. The argument is extremely logical. You just don't believe it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

For example, Jesus does not correct the wrong thinking of the woman at the well, who thought Jesus was talking about literal water that she can draw from a well and drink, when he was talking about the Holy Spirit. Neither does he correct the thinking of those who misinterpreted him when he said "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up". They thought he meant the literal temple, but he meant the temple that was his body. In both these cases, Jesus left it as a mystery to those who heard it and didn't correct them. You obviously can not conclude that their respective literal interpretations were correct, simply because Jesus didn't correct them. And I can give the same kind of argument for each item in your list.

---

Did Jesus repeat he argument 6 times here and keep elevating the language each time that he was met with shock and discuss here?

---

It's logical possibility. But it is NOT a logical necessity. It is a non sequitur.

How many times Jesus repeats something doesn't make the interpretation literal. He could be emphasizing the same figurative meaning. You're making another non sequitur.

Quote:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus doesn't "mislead" his followers, but as scripture even says, he often spoke in difficult to understand parables that undoubtedly they would misinterpret as a fulfillment of prophecy (Matthew 13:13). So yes, in a way, Jesus would indeed "mislead" many people - not that he was being deceptive, but that in their hardness of heart, they wouldn't get what he's really saying. And some might misinterpret him at first, but later come to realize the truth of what he was saying, like when he said he'd raise the temple up in three days. It wasn't until after the resurrection three days after he was crucified when they realized it.

---

Was Jesus speaking as if this were a parable here?

---

Does he have to be? No, he doesn't, in order to fulfill Isaiah's prophecy. Speaking in parables was one way of accomplishing it. As we see with the woman at the well and the "destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" statement, they don't all have to be parables.

Quote:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If you AREN'T a believer, then no matter, as long as you eat this bread you are saved. It would mean that the whole world can be saved this way, regardless of their belief. It would completely divorce salvation from one's belief or faith and relegate it entirely to a physical act of eating and drinking something. This obviously doesn't make sense, as it clearly contradicts what the bible teaches about salvation.

---

Salvation involves faith, repentance, and living according to God's commandments. Jesus told us to do this. One of the 5 precepts of the Catholic Church it to receive the Eucharist at least once a year. There is no divorce in faith and salvation here.

---

You're just talking. You're not reading, understanding, and thinking. If you take the literal interpretation, then clearly anyone who eats Jesus' flesh is saved, notwithstanding any and all other sacraments. You can't believe the literal interpretation of John 6 AND believe that any other sacrament is required for salvation. To believe one is to deny the other. I can't understand this for you.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If Also, if you take the literal meaning, then you're left with some dilemmas - how did the thief on the cross get saved? There is no way he was able to eat the Last Supper bread. Did a fleck of Jesus' flesh happen to fly into his mouth while he was on his cross?

---

God works outside of the sacraments. We don't.

---

In other words, you're saying God can say something that isn't true.

Isn't it strange how in order for your beliefs to work, God constantly has to be going against what he directly says in Scripture?

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone

---

That verse is not saying that you are saved by Works. It's saying that true faith produces good works. It's a difficult passage on it's own, but when compared to the rest of Scripture, it's obvious that Salvation is by GRACE through FAITH alone, but true faith produces good works because when you truly believe something, you act upon that belief. Read the ENTIRE book of Romans. It's crystal clear that we are not Justified by works. James says that IF we truly have Faith (Which results in Salvation on it's own) we will produce good works as an outward proof that we are saved.

Ro 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

---

Of Course it's not saying that. But it also can't be taken out of context. Faith without works is dead.

No free rides

---

No Free Rides? It's all Free:

Romans 11:6 (KJV)

And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.


If you work for it, you lose it:

Galations:

1Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. 5For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Church is tomorrow, find a good Bible believing Church and attend!

So James was wrong?

Oldbear83 said:

---

So James was wrong?

---

James wasn't saying that we are saved by works. He was saying that true faith produces works. James was writing to a Jewish audience. Jews were used to keeping the Law to be saved. It was not written to gentiles like Paul's writings were.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So James was wrong?

---

James wasn't saying that we are saved by works. He was saying that true faith produces works. James was writing to a Jewish audience. Jews were used to keeping the Law to be saved. It was not written to gentiles like Paul's writings were.

---

Again, no on e says we are saved by our works. By pretending we should do nothing since we have what we want, as you implied, that leads to peril.

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So James was wrong?

---

James wasn't saying that we are saved by works. He was saying that true faith produces works. James was writing to a Jewish audience. Jews were used to keeping the Law to be saved. It was not written to gentiles like Paul's writings were.

---

Again, no on e says we are saved by our works. By pretending we should do nothing since we have what we want, as you implied, that leads to peril.

---

And no one is saying we should do nothing, either. He didn't imply that at all. You've been repeatedly making this straw man for a while now.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Why not? Treating Jesus' sacrifice with a disrespectful heart is no different than me treating an effigy of you with disrespect. It is hate towards you.

And let's not skip past what you said. You said "Guilty of hate, yes. Guilty of murder, no". You concede that the bible says that if you're guilty of hate you're guilty of murder, right? Therefore your statement is wrong, correct?

---

No, you are trying to read into the bible AGAIN what you WANT to believe rather than accepting the author's intention of the passage.

1 Cor 29-30
For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

One does not get sick or even die from eating a symbol.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

None of what you are saying here necessitates a literal interpretation. As I keep saying, you are making non-sequiturs.

---

No. The argument is extremely logical. You just don't believe it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It's logical possibility. But it is NOT a logical necessity. It is a non sequitur.

How many times Jesus repeats something doesn't make the interpretation literal. He could be emphasizing the same figurative meaning. You're making another non sequitur.

---

Once again, your interpretation is NOT looking at John's (and Jesus') true intention.

You WANT to NOT believe what Jesus is saying with your rhetoric.

You ignore what Jesus says.
You ignore Paul's belief of the Real Presence.
You ignore the earliest of Church fathers.
You ignore the entire nearly 2000-year history of the Real Presence.

Have you ever investigated the ? This is when the bread (the actual accidents) are changed into actual flesh. The first recorded instance is in 750 AD when an Italian priest in was having doubts about transubstantiation. As he said the words of institution, the bread changed into a piece of flesh. It has been studied and verified that it is from the heart. It has also been verified that the blood was AB.

There have been dozens of recorded Eucharistic miracles in the Church.


You doubt all this, but you can't tell me by what authority that I should believe your interpretation that is contra to the bible actual intentions.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

In other words, you're saying God can say something that isn't true.

Isn't it strange how in order for your beliefs to work, God constantly has to be going against what he directly says in Scripture?

---

Isn't it strange how you ignore the totality of scripture?

Jesus says, you must be born of water and spirit to enter the kingdom God, but you reject baptismal regeneration.
Jesus says that you have to follow the commandments, but you stated that you can't lose salvation.
Jesus said to eat my flesh, but you reject that.

Salvation was never a one-and-done theology until 500 years ago.

Finally, on this, the Greek NT didn't have punctuation. "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise" OR "Truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise." Punctuation makes a big difference.

The word "paradise" does refer to heaven, but it could also refer to the abode of the dead for the righteous, the bosom of Abraham. The gates of heaven were still closed on Good Friday. Jesus descended into the abode of the dead on Good Friday, not heaven.

EDIT AND ADDITION …

You also ignore that Jesus' assertion and commandment at all three synoptic Gospels when he said "This IS my body. Do this in remembrance of me."

You also fail to understand what Passover is about and its critical link to the Last Supper. Moses commanded the Hebrews to sacrifice an unblemished male lamb and coat the door post with the blood for them to be saved from death. The most essential part of that was the eating of ALL of the lamb.

In later Passovers, the family would take the unblemished, male lamb into their homes and protect it for a week. Then the father would carry the lamb to the wall at the temple when the priests would slit the throat of the lamb and drain the blood. Its only when the blood was poured on the alter was the sacrifice offered.

Next they drove a stick thru the front legs and another from the head to the tail, essentially crucifying the lamb. They took the lamb home, cooked, and eat ALL the lamb.

In typology, the new is ALWAYS better than the old. In John 6, Jesus tells us that Eucharist is the new manna from heaven. If merely a symbol, then it would be less than the miraculous manna in Exodus 16.

If it was just a symbol, then it would be less than the lamb at the original Passover. We know that it can't be less. John tells us in 1:29

"Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world".

At the Last Supper, Christ was priest and victim.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Why not? Treating Jesus' sacrifice with a disrespectful heart is no different than me treating an effigy of you with disrespect. It is hate towards you.

And let's not skip past what you said. You said "Guilty of hate, yes. Guilty of murder, no". You concede that the bible says that if you're guilty of hate you're guilty of murder, right? Therefore your statement is wrong, correct?

---

No, you are trying to read into the bible AGAIN what you WANT to believe rather than accepting the author's intention of the passage.

1 Cor 29-30
For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

One does not get sick or even die from eating a symbol.

---

You're trying to escape from what you said. You said you can be guilty of hate, but not guilty of murder. Do you concede that the bible says that is wrong?

I don't think you understand what "reading into the bible" actually means. Using the bible to interpret and understand the bible is not "reading into" it. It's actually a very valid, strong form of hermaneutic.

You're also trying to escape the reasoning being given. Please answer - you agreed that being disrespectful to your symbol can be "hate", so can't being disrespectful toward Jesus' symbol also be considered "hate"? Yes, or no? And since "hate" is the same as murder, wouldn't that mean you're guilty of murder against Jesus, at least in God's eyes, even if it's just towards his symbol? Can you falsify this reasoning? If not, then you have absolutely no standing to say that I'm wrong.

Actually, yes, one can get sick and die from eating a symbol. If I eat your effigy, it certainly can make me sick and die. This is yet another one of your questionable reasonings.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

None of what you are saying here necessitates a literal interpretation. As I keep saying, you are making non-sequiturs.

---

No. The argument is extremely logical. You just don't believe it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It's logical possibility. But it is NOT a logical necessity. It is a non sequitur.

How many times Jesus repeats something doesn't make the interpretation literal. He could be emphasizing the same figurative meaning. You're making another non sequitur.

---

Once again, your interpretation is NOT looking at John's (and Jesus') true intention.

You WANT to NOT believe what Jesus is saying with your rhetoric.

You ignore what Jesus says.
You ignore Paul's belief of the Real Presence.
You ignore the earliest of Church fathers.
You ignore the entire nearly 2000-year history of the Real Presence.

Have you ever investigated the ? This is when the bread (the actual accidents) are changed into actual flesh. The first recorded instance is in 750 AD when an Italian priest in was having doubts about transubstantiation. As he said the words of institution, the bread changed into a piece of flesh. It has been studied and verified that it is from the heart. It has also been verified that the blood was AB.

There have been dozens of recorded Eucharistic miracles in the Church.


You doubt all this, but you can't tell me by what authority that I should believe your interpretation that is contra to the bible actual intentions.

---

Repeating your statements after it's been logically refuted won't make them correct. This has nothing to do with my "belief". Logically, your arguments are non sequiturs. That's just a fact. If you think you can prove they are not, that they necessitate a literal interpretation, then let's hear it.

It's exceedingly rich that you accuse me of "ignoring what Jesus says" when all I've been doing is going exactly by what Jesus says, and showing that actually YOU are the one ignoring it. "Whoever eats my flesh HAS eternal life".

Paul never said the bread was the "Real Presence" in that it was the actual flesh of Jesus. You're interpreting everything through the lens of your presuppositions, therefore you are arguing in a circle. Where your argument fails, is that if you assume that the bread IS the literal flesh of Jesus, then you must take the literal interpretation that whoever eats that flesh HAS eternal life. But you reject that, so you are in a contradiction - literal one way, but not literal the other. The obvious answer to your contradiction is that your original presupposition must be wrong. Again, I can't understand this for you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Why not? Treating Jesus' sacrifice with a disrespectful heart is no different than me treating an effigy of you with disrespect. It is hate towards you.

And let's not skip past what you said. You said "Guilty of hate, yes. Guilty of murder, no". You concede that the bible says that if you're guilty of hate you're guilty of murder, right? Therefore your statement is wrong, correct?

---

No, you are trying to read into the bible AGAIN what you WANT to believe rather than accepting the author's intention of the passage.

1 Cor 29-30
For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

One does not get sick or even die from eating a symbol.

---

You're trying to escape from what you said. You said you can be guilty of hate, but not guilty of murder. Do you concede that the bible says that is wrong?

I don't think you understand what "reading into the bible" actually means. Using the bible to interpret and understand the bible is not "reading into" it. It's actually a very valid, strong form of hermaneutic.

You're also trying to escape the reasoning being given. Please answer - you agreed that being disrespectful to your symbol can be "hate", so can't being disrespectful toward Jesus' symbol also be considered "hate"? Yes, or no? And since "hate" is the same as murder, wouldn't that mean you're guilty of murder against Jesus, at least in God's eyes, even if it's just towards his symbol? Can you falsify this reasoning? If not, then you have absolutely no standing to say that I'm wrong.

Actually, yes, one can get sick and die from eating a symbol. If I eat your effigy, it certainly can make me sick and die. This is yet another one of your questionable reasonings.

---

Bless your heart. Your are so hung up a the analogy that your can't take Paul's words to heart and their actual meaning.

The "eating the effigy and getting sick" might be the dumbest thing you've posted on here to avoid the reality of the scripture.

Quote:

---

You doubt all this, but you can't tell me by what authority that I should believe your interpretation that is contra to the bible actual intentions.

---

This is the saddest thing of all that you have argued. It doesn't take "authority" to be able to behold the evidence of our eyes, ears, and mind, and think rationally and honestly. This is what the nobel Bereans did in Acts (Acts 17:11) And Jesus even said "And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57). So in a way, I guess you can say my authority is Jesus and the bible.

What's really sad about it, is that it's the mentality of people in a cult - they're not allowed to decide for themselves what's right, but rather they need to submit to an authority to tell them what to think, even though it's against the evidence of their own eyes and mind, and you are kept in line because they threaten hell on you if you refuse. It's truly disheartening. Stop going by church authority to tell you what to think, and judge for yourself whether the reasoning and logic I'm presenting to you is correct and sound, or not.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

In other words, you're saying God can say something that isn't true.

Isn't it strange how in order for your beliefs to work, God constantly has to be going against what he directly says in Scripture?

---

Isn't it strange how you ignore the totality of scripture? The "totality of Scripture" argument doesn't not mean Jesus' direct statement can be false.

Jesus says, you must be born of water and spirit to enter the kingdom God, but you reject baptismal regeneration. That's if you assume that "born of water" necessarily means water baptism, another non sequitur.

Jesus says that you have to follow the commandments, but you stated that you can't lose salvation. Jesus saying that we must follow the commandments is not saying that true believers can lose their salvation. Yet ANOTHER non-sequitur.

Jesus said to eat my flesh, but you reject that. Yes, I reject your literal interpretation because the bible shows that is necessarily incorrect.

Salvation was never a one-and-done theology until 500 years ago. The bible teaches it (John 6:37, Romans 8:30-31, Ephesians 1:13, 1 John 5:13)

Finally, on this, the Greek NT didn't have punctuation. "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise" OR "Truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise." Punctuation makes a big difference. It doesn't make a difference here at all - the thief is saved either way. He died never have eaten Jesus' flesh, unless you're gonna say he took part in the Lord's supper, or a piece of Jesus' flesh flew into his mouth as he hung on his cross.

The word "paradise" does refer to heaven, but it could also refer to the abode of the dead for the righteous, the bosom of Abraham. The gates of heaven were still closed on Good Friday. Jesus descended into the abode of the dead on Good Friday, not heaven. Wherever it was, it was with Jesus. That's pretty much being "saved". Do any who are in Paradise NOT go to heaven?

EDIT AND ADDITION …

You also ignore that Jesus' assertion and commandment at all three synoptic Gospels when he said "This IS my body. Do this in remembrance of me." Symbolic.

You also fail to understand what Passover is about and its critical link to the Last Supper. Moses commanded the Hebrews to sacrifice an unblemished male lamb and coat the door post with the blood for them to be saved from death. The most essential part of that was the eating of ALL of the lamb. Symbolic.

In later Passovers, the family would take the unblemished, male lamb into their homes and protect it for a week. Then the father would carry the lamb to the wall at the temple when the priests would slit the throat of the lamb and drain the blood. Its only when the blood was poured on the alter was the sacrifice offered. Jesus offered his real body and real blood.

Next they drove a stick thru the front legs and another from the head to the tail, essentially crucifying the lamb. They took the lamb home, cooked, and eat ALL the lamb. Eating is symbolic.

In typology, the new is ALWAYS better than the old. In John 6, Jesus tells us that Eucharist is the new manna from heaven. If merely a symbol, then it would be less than the miraculous manna in Exodus 16. The new IS better - "eating" Jesus in the form of believing in his bodily sacrifice leads to the miracle of saving us to eternal life. Physical eating still leads to death. As Jesus said, "your fathers ate manna, and died", and "the flesh is of no help".

If it was just a symbol, then it would be less than the lamb at the original Passover. We know that it can't be less. John tells us in 1:29 It wouldn't be less, for the reasons mentioned.

"Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world".

At the Last Supper, Christ was priest and victim. Then why did he have to die on the cross later? Why not just proclaim a bunch of bread to be his body, and feed the world? If he already gave his real body at the Last Supper, then dying on the cross was superfluously painful and excruciating.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Why not? Treating Jesus' sacrifice with a disrespectful heart is no different than me treating an effigy of you with disrespect. It is hate towards you.

And let's not skip past what you said. You said "Guilty of hate, yes. Guilty of murder, no". You concede that the bible says that if you're guilty of hate you're guilty of murder, right? Therefore your statement is wrong, correct?

---

No, you are trying to read into the bible AGAIN what you WANT to believe rather than accepting the author's intention of the passage.

1 Cor 29-30
For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

One does not get sick or even die from eating a symbol.

---

You're trying to escape from what you said. You said you can be guilty of hate, but not guilty of murder. Do you concede that the bible says that is wrong?

I don't think you understand what "reading into the bible" actually means. Using the bible to interpret and understand the bible is not "reading into" it. It's actually a very valid, strong form of hermaneutic.

You're also trying to escape the reasoning being given. Please answer - you agreed that being disrespectful to your symbol can be "hate", so can't being disrespectful toward Jesus' symbol also be considered "hate"? Yes, or no? And since "hate" is the same as murder, wouldn't that mean you're guilty of murder against Jesus, at least in God's eyes, even if it's just towards his symbol? Can you falsify this reasoning? If not, then you have absolutely no standing to say that I'm wrong.

Actually, yes, one can get sick and die from eating a symbol. If I eat your effigy, it certainly can make me sick and die. This is yet another one of your questionable reasonings.

---

Bless your heart. Your are so hung up a the analogy that your can't take Paul's words to heart and their actual meaning.

The "eating the effigy and getting sick" might be the dumbest thing you've posted on here to avoid the reality of the scripture.

---

Everyone can sense that "bless your heart" means you don't have an argument, so you're resorting to passive agressive insult.

How is what I said stupid? It was YOUR CLAIM!! Did you not just claim that you CAN'T get sick eating a symbol?

Going to have to agree with Coke bear. You have to take the word for what it says. You can't make the word of God conform to what you wanted to say.

Saint Anastasia the Roman (250 A D.)

The Martyr Anastasia the Roman lost her parents in infancy, and was then taken to be reared by the abbess of a women's monastery, named Sophia. She raised Anastasia in fervent faith, in the fear of God and obedience.

The persecution against Christians by the emperor Decius (249-251) began at that time. The city administrator, Probus, on the orders of the emperor commanded that Anastasia be brought to him. Blessed by her abbess to suffer for Christ, the young martyr Anastasia humbly came out to meet the armed soldiers. Seeing her youth and beauty, Probus first attempted flattery to make her deny Christ.

"Why waste your youth, deprived of pleasure? What is there to gain by enduring tortures and death for the Crucified? Worship our gods, marry a handsome husband, and live in glory and honor."

The saint steadfastly replied, "My spouse, my riches, my life and my happiness are my Lord Jesus Christ, and you will not turn me away from Him by your deceit!"

Probus subjected Anastasia to fierce tortures. The holy martyr bravely endured them, glorifying and praising the Lord. In anger the torturers cut out her tongue.

The people, seeing the inhuman and disgusting treatment of the saint, became indignant, and the ruler was compelled to end the tortures by beheading the martyr. In this manner, Saint Anastasia received the crown of martyrdom.

Saint Anastasia, pray for us.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

None of what you are saying here necessitates a literal interpretation. As I keep saying, you are making non-sequiturs.

---

No. The argument is extremely logical. You just don't believe it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It's logical possibility. But it is NOT a logical necessity. It is a non sequitur.

How many times Jesus repeats something doesn't make the interpretation literal. He could be emphasizing the same figurative meaning. You're making another non sequitur.

---

Once again, your interpretation is NOT looking at John's (and Jesus') true intention.

You WANT to NOT believe what Jesus is saying with your rhetoric.

You ignore what Jesus says.
You ignore Paul's belief of the Real Presence.
You ignore the earliest of Church fathers.
You ignore the entire nearly 2000-year history of the Real Presence.

---

John's true intention in his gospel was to highlight Jesus' extensive use of symbols and figures to express a profoundly deeper truth - "I am the door", "I am the gate", "I am the good shepherd", "I am the true vine", "living water", "food that you don't know of", "I am the bread of life", etc.

You are constantly viewing everything that is said in that gospel and elsewhere through the lens of your tradition, which says that the bread is the literal flesh of Jesus. I have repeatedly shown you that taking the literal meaning would contradict your tradition's very own beliefs regarding mortal sin and salvation, as well as create contradictions within the bible itself (salvation of the thief on the cross, Judas' damnation, prohibition against eating blood, salvation being apart from one' faith, salvation being relegated entirely to the mere physical act of eating and drinking, etc). And you have NOT resolved ANY of these contradictions. So far, you've completely ignored and avoided them, and have resorted to non sequitur arguments and arguing in a circle. It makes sense that the reason the contradictions can't be resolved is because your initial presupposition is wrong - the literal interpretation must be incorrect.

Regarding your list of statments: "You ignore what Jesus says. You ignore Paul's belief of the Real Presence. You ignore the earliest of Church fathers.You ignore the entire nearly 2000-year history of the Real Presence."

- No, I'm not ignoring anything Jesus says. The important thing is to interpret everything he says correctly. Aren't you the one ignoring Jesus when he says "WHOEVER eats my flesh HAS eternal life"? You're taking what he says literally in one place, but then abandoning your literalist approach in another. This makes your interpretation untenable.

- No, I'm not ignoring Paul's belief in the "Real Presence" because he doesn't say that. Nor is he necessarily saying the bread is the literal flesh of Jesus. His statements regarding the Eucharist (communion) can easily be read symbolically, you just choose to read it as an affirmation of your tradition's belief of the literal meaning. And I've repeatedly explained logically why and how the literal meaning necessarily fails.

- No, I'm not ignoring the earliest of Church fathers who said that the bread and wine are symbols.

- No, I'm not ignoring anything about the 2000 year old history of the Real Presence. I acknowledge that it is present in Church history, I just believe it is wrong. You yourself acknowledged it took time for this belief to develop into its form today. That in itself suggests that it is an accretion, and not the original apostolic tradition. I believe it is wrong, the same way the other Catholic sacraments are wrong, which are just as or nearly as old (mariology, iconography, the papacy, prayers to saints, the deuterocanon, etc. "Old" does not necessarily mean it's correct. Tradition isn't necessarily correct.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Going to have to agree with Coke bear. You have to take the word for what it says. You can't make the word of God conform to what you wanted to say.

---

You are aware that he's saying that about YOU because you believe transubstantiation is false, aren't you?

Everyone agrees that you can't make the bible conform to what you want it to say. The question is, what is it really saying? Those who believe that the Eucharist/communion bread is the literal flesh of Jesus accuse those who believe it is symbolic of "reading into scripture". And in turn, those who believe it is symbolic accuse the literalists of the same. So which is correct?

I believe I have shown why the literal interpretation is necessarily incorrect using the "totality of scripture" (which I was accused of denying, ironically). Here is the basic summary - the literal interpretation:

• would relegate the entirety of salvation to the mere physical acts of eating and drinking something, which is obviously contrary to everything the bible teaches about salvation;
• would completely divorce salvation from a person's belief and faith in Jesus, again, clearly contrary to what the bible teaches;
• would contradict how the thief on the cross was saved;
• would contradict how Judas was damned;
• would require Jesus to have sinned by commanding his disciples to eat blood, which is expressly forbidden under the Law, the Law still being in effect since Jesus had not been crucified and resurrected yet;
• would mean that Jesus' body was actually sacrificed at the Last Supper, not at the cross;
• would mean the disciples were saved at the Last Supper, and also mean that the whole world could be saved in similar fashion by simply eating the bread and drinking the wine, which would make Jesus' eventual excruciating torture and crucifixion completely superfluous and unnecessary.

Given that these are obviously wrong and contradictory, even nonsensical, it makes it quite probable that the literal interpretation is incorrect. The only solution to resolving all these is to pick and choose which parts of the bible to take literally, and arbitrarily deciding which parts not to. This also invalidates the literal interpretation. You might say that'd be involving "reading into the scripture what one wants it to say".

None of the bullet points you have posted are in the bible. What they represent is your flawed *interpretation* of Bible verses based on poorly applied logic and grammar.

For instance, it is abundantly clear that Christ's words about communion at the last supper referred to the future presence for communion to be taken in his memory. You don't do that when the person is sitting at the table with you.

Realitybites said:

---

None of the bullet points you have posted are in the bible. What they represent is your flawed *interpretation* of Bible verses based on poorly applied logic and grammar.

For instance, it is abundantly clear that Christ's words about communion at the last supper referred to the future presence for communion to be taken in his memory. You don't do that when the person is sittinf at the table with you.

---

There's no future implication to saying "This IS my body". He didn't say "This WILL BE my body".

Seriously, this is your argument? So who's really the one with the "flawed interpretation" based on "poor logic and grammar"?

And wouldn't the fact that the future eating of the communion bread being a "remembrance" argue against it being his literal flesh? That'd certainly make it much more than a mere remembrance.

So your theology, Preacher Clinton, is dependent on what the meaning of "IS" is instead of simply taking what Christ said literally in its full context? How sad. It is quite clear that the last supper was a *demonstration* of what communion post crucifixion and resurrection would be. The body and blood was sitting at the table at that moment in time. Even a dispensationalist with a stopwatch is forced to admit as much.

Realitybites said:

---

So your theology, Preacher Clinton, is dependent on what the meaning of "IS" is instead of simply taking what Christ said literally in its full context? How sad. It is quite clear that the last supper was a *demonstration* of what communion post crucifixion and resurrection would be.

---

If you're whole argument is based on "is" being a future tense, then yes, the discussion needs to get lowered to a lesson in basic english. The bar is being lowered by you here, not by me.

If you can't understand what you're doing wrong here at the basic level, then I have doubts about your interpretation of the full context. Seriously, it's mind numbing what you're arguing here.

Realitybites said:

---

Saint Anastasia the Roman (250 A D.)

The Martyr Anastasia the Roman lost her parents in infancy, and was then taken to be reared by the abbess of a women's monastery, named Sophia. She raised Anastasia in fervent faith, in the fear of God and obedience.

The persecution against Christians by the emperor Decius (249-251) began at that time. The city administrator, Probus, on the orders of the emperor commanded that Anastasia be brought to him. Blessed by her abbess to suffer for Christ, the young martyr Anastasia humbly came out to meet the armed soldiers. Seeing her youth and beauty, Probus first attempted flattery to make her deny Christ.

"Why waste your youth, deprived of pleasure? What is there to gain by enduring tortures and death for the Crucified? Worship our gods, marry a handsome husband, and live in glory and honor."

The saint steadfastly replied, "My spouse, my riches, my life and my happiness are my Lord Jesus Christ, and you will not turn me away from Him by your deceit!"

Probus subjected Anastasia to fierce tortures. The holy martyr bravely endured them, glorifying and praising the Lord. In anger the torturers cut out her tongue.

The people, seeing the inhuman and disgusting treatment of the saint, became indignant, and the ruler was compelled to end the tortures by beheading the martyr. In this manner, Saint Anastasia received the crown of martyrdom.

Saint Anastasia, pray for us.

---

I'm glad that you brought another saint for everyone to read about. Learning about their lives gives us roles models that we can emulate to help us grow closer to the Lord.


Tertullian said, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church."

I hope that you present more. For the last several years, I have been presenting saints to the teens at our parish for them to learn about. People love to hear stories.

I may join you in this endeavor

Coke Bear said:

---

Tertullian said, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church."

I hope that you present more. For the last several years, I have been presenting saints to the teens at our parish for them to learn about. People love to hear stories.

I may join you in this endeavor

---

Go right ahead. Following in the footsteps of those who were martyred for professing Christ is a much more worthwhile endeavor than straining the gnats of biblical grammar. After all, this thread is titled "How To Get To Heaven", so taking encouragement from those who already made the trip is profitable.

Realitybites said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Tertullian said, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church."

I hope that you present more. For the last several years, I have been presenting saints to the teens at our parish for them to learn about. People love to hear stories.

I may join you in this endeavor

---

Go right ahead. Following in the footsteps of those who were martyred for professing Christ is a much more worthwhile endeavor than straining the gnats of biblical grammar. After all, this thread is titled "How To Get To Heaven", so taking encouragement from those who already made the trip is profitable.

---

Perhaps not so profitable, if one's understanding of Scripture is so egregiously wrong that it's nonsensical. Believing that Jesus saying "This is my body" is NOT referring to the bread he was holding at that moment, is a far greater problem than mere grammatical gnats.

Coke Bear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Saint Anastasia the Roman (250 A D.)

The Martyr Anastasia the Roman lost her parents in infancy, and was then taken to be reared by the abbess of a women's monastery, named Sophia. She raised Anastasia in fervent faith, in the fear of God and obedience.

The persecution against Christians by the emperor Decius (249-251) began at that time. The city administrator, Probus, on the orders of the emperor commanded that Anastasia be brought to him. Blessed by her abbess to suffer for Christ, the young martyr Anastasia humbly came out to meet the armed soldiers. Seeing her youth and beauty, Probus first attempted flattery to make her deny Christ.

"Why waste your youth, deprived of pleasure? What is there to gain by enduring tortures and death for the Crucified? Worship our gods, marry a handsome husband, and live in glory and honor."

The saint steadfastly replied, "My spouse, my riches, my life and my happiness are my Lord Jesus Christ, and you will not turn me away from Him by your deceit!"

Probus subjected Anastasia to fierce tortures. The holy martyr bravely endured them, glorifying and praising the Lord. In anger the torturers cut out her tongue.

The people, seeing the inhuman and disgusting treatment of the saint, became indignant, and the ruler was compelled to end the tortures by beheading the martyr. In this manner, Saint Anastasia received the crown of martyrdom.

Saint Anastasia, pray for us.

---

Tertullian said, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church."

---

Gonna have to disagree with Tertullian there. The blood of Jesus is the seed of the Church. He described himself as such in John 12:23-24. The blood of martyrs are the fertilizer of Jesus' Church.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

[Gonna have to disagree with Tertullian there. The blood of Jesus is the seed of the Church. He described himself as such in John 12:23-24. The blood of martyrs are the fertilizer of Jesus' Church.

---

Remember that time when some dude on the internet in 2024 argued about how to word something with this guy?



Me either. Seriously, you literally are the gnat strainer that Jesus warned us about.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

[Gonna have to disagree with Tertullian there. The blood of Jesus is the seed of the Church. He described himself as such in John 12:23-24. The blood of martyrs are the fertilizer of Jesus' Church.

---

Remember that time when some dude on the internet in 2024 argued about how to word something with this guy?



Me either. Seriously, you literally are the gnat strainer that Jesus warned us about.

---

It's always a whole lot easier to attack the man than to argue against the truth of what he's saying.

I never thought I'd ever see a professed Christian so offended at Jesus properly getting the glory over the saints. It really is telling.

The question is, am I straining gnats or are you really swallowing a camel?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

[Gonna have to disagree with Tertullian there. The blood of Jesus is the seed of the Church. He described himself as such in John 12:23-24. The blood of martyrs are the fertilizer of Jesus' Church.

---

Remember that time when some dude on the internet in 2024 argued about how to word something with this guy?



Me either. Seriously, you literally are the gnat strainer that Jesus warned us about.

---

It's always a whole lot easier to attack the man than to argue against the truth of what he's saying.

I never thought I'd ever see a professed Christian so offended at Jesus properly getting the glory over the saints. It really is telling.

The question is, am I straining gnats or are you really swallowing a camel?

---

I've never seen the creator jealous of those who admire the creation or the artist jealous of those who appreciate the art.

Hieromartyrs Zenobius and his sister Zenobia, of Aegae in Cilicia (285 A.D.)

The Hieromartyr Zenobius, Bishop of Aegea, and his sister Zenobia suffered a martyr's death in the year 285 in Cilicia. From childhood they were raised in the holy Christian Faith by their parents, and they led pious and chaste lives.

In their mature years, shunning the love of money, they distributed away their inherited wealth giving it to the poor. For his beneficence and holy life the Lord rewarded Zenobius with the gift of healing various maladies. He was also chosen bishop of a Christian community in Cilicia. As bishop, Saint Zenobius zealously spread the Christian Faith among the pagans.

When the emperor Diocletian (284-305) began a persecution against Christians, Bishop Zenobius was the first one arrested and brought to trial to the governor Licius. "I shall only speak briefly with you," said Licius to the saint, "for I propose to grant you life if you worship our gods, or death, if you do not."

The saint answered, "This present life without Christ is death. It is better that I prepare to endure the present torment for my Creator, and then with Him live eternally, than to renounce Him for the sake of the present life, and then be tormented eternally in Hades."

By order of Licius, they nailed him to a cross and began the torture. The bishop's sister, seeing him suffering, wanted to stop it. She bravely confessed her own faith in Christ before the governor, therefore, she also was tortured.

By the power of the Lord they remained alive after being placed on a red-hot iron bed, and then in a boiling kettle. The saints were then beheaded. The priest Hermogenes secretly buried the bodies of the martyrs in a single grave.

Saint Zenobius and Zenobia, pray for us.