Waco1947 said:
Do you guys believe that the other guys are not going to heaven?
Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:
The Church which Christ founded, is based in Heaven, not Rome.
Peter was the rock in heaven jesus built his church on? New interpretation up in here
Waco1947 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Waco1947 said:
Do you guys believe that the other guys are not going to heaven?
If Christians did not believe that other people weren't going to heaven, then there would be no such thing as evangelism.
Well, the hearts of those who never get the message of evangelism. What a cruel God.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
If eating Jesus literal flesh in the form of the Eucharist bread through transubstantiation gave life, then non-believers who eat the Eucharist bread are saved to eternal life, regardless of their non-belief. Otherwise Jesus was a liar, since you take his words literally.
You just can't take your own beliefs to their logical conclusion. No surprise there.
Actually, please read 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 closely where Paul warns and chastises those that eat and drink unworthily.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
Lastly, on this point, Jesus can give eternal life to those who obey and received the Eucharist, but we can reject that gift of eternal life with our actions.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
You saying that I have a lack of understanding of the Law is laughable by your assertion that ceremonial was not part of the Law (the Torah). Jesus said he came to fulfill every jot and tittle of the Torah. Your claim that there was nothing wrong with drinking blood directly contradicts the Torah. And Jesus could not have fulfilled the Law until he obeyed the Law perfectly his whole life until he died. But obviously he was still alive during the Last Supper, and thus still under the Law.
I never said that the ceremonial law was not part of the Torah. You are creating strawmen of others' point again.
At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted the Eucharist saying, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
There he fulfilled the old ceremonial laws and created a new and eternal covenant that transcends the old one.
The Eucharistic celebration is not an ordinary Consumption of blood but a sacramental participation in the mystery of Christ's death and resurrection the appearances of bread and wine remain but their essence is transformed through transubstantiation into the Body and Blood of Christ.
And then you also skipped over the fact (which I'll state again, in Mark 7:19, Jesus declares all foods clean -
For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
Look, I'm getting tired of maligning your lack of logical thinking, and besides it's getting me in trouble with my protestant brethren here..... but you continue to fail to apply logic correctly. As I've said to you repeatedly, if you're arguing that Jesus was literal in John 6, then eating his flesh gives you eternal life. He makes no conditions. If you're saying that Paul contradicts that, then you're saying that Jesus and Paul are in contradiction. Because if Paul is correct, then Jesus is a liar, since a person can eat Jesus' flesh and NOT have eternal life.
In Mark 7:19, the words in parenthesis ("thus, he declared all foods unclean") may have not been original. But regardless, it isn't relevant, because blood is NOT "food" in the Torah. The dietary laws spell out what kinds of MEAT you can eat from the animals, not their blood. The prohibition against eating blood is explicit and clear.
I have still have yet to hear your solution to the problem with Judas not being saved, and the apostles' instruction to Gentile believers to abstain from blood.
If there's a contradiction between Jesus and Paul, the symbolic interpretation doesn't make it go away.
The prohibitions on blood and certain types of meat are equally clear. If Jesus can change one, he can change the other.
If Judas wasn't saved, it's because "once saved, always saved" isn't true.
The instruction to Gentile believers was a pastoral one, in order to avoid giving scandal.
Is the good thief, St Dismas, in Heaven today? Absolutely; however, we should caution ourselves as to when he entered Heaven.historian said:
The thief on the cross is saved and in heaven today.
Jesus works outside of the sacraments. We can't.historian said:
Note, he was never baptized and did not partake in the Last Supper.
Coke Bear said:Is the good thief, St Dismas, in Heaven today? Absolutely; however, we should caution ourselves as to when he entered Heaven.historian said:
The thief on the cross is saved and in heaven today.
Jesus' quote in Luke 23:43 -
And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."
First, heaven wasn't open until Jesus resurrected on Easter.
Second, the word "paradise" doesn't necessarily mean 'Heaven." It comes from the paradeisos which means an enclosed park or garden. In the Septuagint version of the OT, which Jesus and the apostles used, the word is used to describe the Garden of Edan.
Finally, one could argue that "paradise" here in this context, refers to Abraham's bosom.Jesus works outside of the sacraments. We can't.historian said:
Note, he was never baptized and did not partake in the Last Supper.
St Dimas had no opportunity to be baptized or received the Eucharist. Jesus doesn't hold that against him.
historian said:Waco1947 said:
Do you guys believe that the other guys are not going to heaven?
None of us is qualified to make that determination. Only God can. What any of us believes is irrelevant.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
If eating Jesus literal flesh in the form of the Eucharist bread through transubstantiation gave life, then non-believers who eat the Eucharist bread are saved to eternal life, regardless of their non-belief. Otherwise Jesus was a liar, since you take his words literally.
You just can't take your own beliefs to their logical conclusion. No surprise there.
Actually, please read 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 closely where Paul warns and chastises those that eat and drink unworthily.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
Lastly, on this point, Jesus can give eternal life to those who obey and received the Eucharist, but we can reject that gift of eternal life with our actions.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
You saying that I have a lack of understanding of the Law is laughable by your assertion that ceremonial was not part of the Law (the Torah). Jesus said he came to fulfill every jot and tittle of the Torah. Your claim that there was nothing wrong with drinking blood directly contradicts the Torah. And Jesus could not have fulfilled the Law until he obeyed the Law perfectly his whole life until he died. But obviously he was still alive during the Last Supper, and thus still under the Law.
I never said that the ceremonial law was not part of the Torah. You are creating strawmen of others' point again.
At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted the Eucharist saying, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
There he fulfilled the old ceremonial laws and created a new and eternal covenant that transcends the old one.
The Eucharistic celebration is not an ordinary Consumption of blood but a sacramental participation in the mystery of Christ's death and resurrection the appearances of bread and wine remain but their essence is transformed through transubstantiation into the Body and Blood of Christ.
And then you also skipped over the fact (which I'll state again, in Mark 7:19, Jesus declares all foods clean -
For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
Look, I'm getting tired of maligning your lack of logical thinking, and besides it's getting me in trouble with my protestant brethren here..... but you continue to fail to apply logic correctly. As I've said to you repeatedly, if you're arguing that Jesus was literal in John 6, then eating his flesh gives you eternal life. He makes no conditions. If you're saying that Paul contradicts that, then you're saying that Jesus and Paul are in contradiction. Because if Paul is correct, then Jesus is a liar, since a person can eat Jesus' flesh and NOT have eternal life.
In Mark 7:19, the words in parenthesis ("thus, he declared all foods unclean") may have not been original. But regardless, it isn't relevant, because blood is NOT "food" in the Torah. The dietary laws spell out what kinds of MEAT you can eat from the animals, not their blood. The prohibition against eating blood is explicit and clear.
I have still have yet to hear your solution to the problem with Judas not being saved, and the apostles' instruction to Gentile believers to abstain from blood.
If there's a contradiction between Jesus and Paul, the symbolic interpretation doesn't make it go away.
The prohibitions on blood and certain types of meat are equally clear. If Jesus can change one, he can change the other.
If Judas wasn't saved, it's because "once saved, always saved" isn't true.
The instruction to Gentile believers was a pastoral one, in order to avoid giving scandal.
Whatever the Eucharist is, whether flesh or a symbol, Jesus said unless you eat it you shall not have life within you. There's no "symbolic" interpretation that turns a shall not into a shall. Paul's instruction to the gentiles isn't about the sacrament.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
If eating Jesus literal flesh in the form of the Eucharist bread through transubstantiation gave life, then non-believers who eat the Eucharist bread are saved to eternal life, regardless of their non-belief. Otherwise Jesus was a liar, since you take his words literally.
You just can't take your own beliefs to their logical conclusion. No surprise there.
Actually, please read 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 closely where Paul warns and chastises those that eat and drink unworthily.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
Lastly, on this point, Jesus can give eternal life to those who obey and received the Eucharist, but we can reject that gift of eternal life with our actions.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
You saying that I have a lack of understanding of the Law is laughable by your assertion that ceremonial was not part of the Law (the Torah). Jesus said he came to fulfill every jot and tittle of the Torah. Your claim that there was nothing wrong with drinking blood directly contradicts the Torah. And Jesus could not have fulfilled the Law until he obeyed the Law perfectly his whole life until he died. But obviously he was still alive during the Last Supper, and thus still under the Law.
I never said that the ceremonial law was not part of the Torah. You are creating strawmen of others' point again.
At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted the Eucharist saying, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
There he fulfilled the old ceremonial laws and created a new and eternal covenant that transcends the old one.
The Eucharistic celebration is not an ordinary Consumption of blood but a sacramental participation in the mystery of Christ's death and resurrection the appearances of bread and wine remain but their essence is transformed through transubstantiation into the Body and Blood of Christ.
And then you also skipped over the fact (which I'll state again, in Mark 7:19, Jesus declares all foods clean -
For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
Look, I'm getting tired of maligning your lack of logical thinking, and besides it's getting me in trouble with my protestant brethren here..... but you continue to fail to apply logic correctly. As I've said to you repeatedly, if you're arguing that Jesus was literal in John 6, then eating his flesh gives you eternal life. He makes no conditions. If you're saying that Paul contradicts that, then you're saying that Jesus and Paul are in contradiction. Because if Paul is correct, then Jesus is a liar, since a person can eat Jesus' flesh and NOT have eternal life.
In Mark 7:19, the words in parenthesis ("thus, he declared all foods unclean") may have not been original. But regardless, it isn't relevant, because blood is NOT "food" in the Torah. The dietary laws spell out what kinds of MEAT you can eat from the animals, not their blood. The prohibition against eating blood is explicit and clear.
I have still have yet to hear your solution to the problem with Judas not being saved, and the apostles' instruction to Gentile believers to abstain from blood.
If there's a contradiction between Jesus and Paul, the symbolic interpretation doesn't make it go away.
The prohibitions on blood and certain types of meat are equally clear. If Jesus can change one, he can change the other.
If Judas wasn't saved, it's because "once saved, always saved" isn't true.
The instruction to Gentile believers was a pastoral one, in order to avoid giving scandal.
I don't know why you guys haved such a difficult time with this, to where I'm having to constantly having to repeat it: if you take Jesus' words literally in John 6 and in the Last Supper, then Paul saying that one can partake in the Eucharist and NOT have eternal life directly contradicts Jesus. However, the symbolic interpretation removes the contradiction, because it isn't the actual eating of something that gives someone eternal life.
Jesus can do all sorts of things - the question is, did he?
If Judas wasn't saved, it could very well have been that he was never saved to begin with (which is what Scripture indicates) So no, this doesn't disprove "once saved, always saved".
So...it was "pastoral" for the apostles to prevent Gentiles from drinking Jesus' literal blood, thus dooming them to Hell?? If that's being "pastoral", I sure hate to be cursed by them. I don't think you guys have thought this through very well.
historian said:Realitybites said:
While Galatians 5 is tangentially about works salvation, it is specifically about Judaizing, that is attempting to practice a religion that was an admixture of the Old Covenant made obsolete (Heb 8:13) and the New that replaced it. This problem still exists today among the "I'm a follower of Yeshua" crowd.
The Old Covenant was not made obsolete by Christ, He fulfilled it. He said so Himself.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
If eating Jesus literal flesh in the form of the Eucharist bread through transubstantiation gave life, then non-believers who eat the Eucharist bread are saved to eternal life, regardless of their non-belief. Otherwise Jesus was a liar, since you take his words literally.
You just can't take your own beliefs to their logical conclusion. No surprise there.
Actually, please read 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 closely where Paul warns and chastises those that eat and drink unworthily.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
Lastly, on this point, Jesus can give eternal life to those who obey and received the Eucharist, but we can reject that gift of eternal life with our actions.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
You saying that I have a lack of understanding of the Law is laughable by your assertion that ceremonial was not part of the Law (the Torah). Jesus said he came to fulfill every jot and tittle of the Torah. Your claim that there was nothing wrong with drinking blood directly contradicts the Torah. And Jesus could not have fulfilled the Law until he obeyed the Law perfectly his whole life until he died. But obviously he was still alive during the Last Supper, and thus still under the Law.
I never said that the ceremonial law was not part of the Torah. You are creating strawmen of others' point again.
At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted the Eucharist saying, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
There he fulfilled the old ceremonial laws and created a new and eternal covenant that transcends the old one.
The Eucharistic celebration is not an ordinary Consumption of blood but a sacramental participation in the mystery of Christ's death and resurrection the appearances of bread and wine remain but their essence is transformed through transubstantiation into the Body and Blood of Christ.
And then you also skipped over the fact (which I'll state again, in Mark 7:19, Jesus declares all foods clean -
For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
Look, I'm getting tired of maligning your lack of logical thinking, and besides it's getting me in trouble with my protestant brethren here..... but you continue to fail to apply logic correctly. As I've said to you repeatedly, if you're arguing that Jesus was literal in John 6, then eating his flesh gives you eternal life. He makes no conditions. If you're saying that Paul contradicts that, then you're saying that Jesus and Paul are in contradiction. Because if Paul is correct, then Jesus is a liar, since a person can eat Jesus' flesh and NOT have eternal life.
In Mark 7:19, the words in parenthesis ("thus, he declared all foods unclean") may have not been original. But regardless, it isn't relevant, because blood is NOT "food" in the Torah. The dietary laws spell out what kinds of MEAT you can eat from the animals, not their blood. The prohibition against eating blood is explicit and clear.
I have still have yet to hear your solution to the problem with Judas not being saved, and the apostles' instruction to Gentile believers to abstain from blood.
If there's a contradiction between Jesus and Paul, the symbolic interpretation doesn't make it go away.
The prohibitions on blood and certain types of meat are equally clear. If Jesus can change one, he can change the other.
If Judas wasn't saved, it's because "once saved, always saved" isn't true.
The instruction to Gentile believers was a pastoral one, in order to avoid giving scandal.
I don't know why you guys haved such a difficult time with this, to where I'm having to constantly having to repeat it: if you take Jesus' words literally in John 6 and in the Last Supper, then Paul saying that one can partake in the Eucharist and NOT have eternal life directly contradicts Jesus. However, the symbolic interpretation removes the contradiction, because it isn't the actual eating of something that gives someone eternal life.
Jesus can do all sorts of things - the question is, did he?
If Judas wasn't saved, it could very well have been that he was never saved to begin with (which is what Scripture indicates) So no, this doesn't disprove "once saved, always saved".
So...it was "pastoral" for the apostles to prevent Gentiles from drinking Jesus' literal blood, thus dooming them to Hell?? If that's being "pastoral", I sure hate to be cursed by them. I don't think you guys have thought this through very well.
Whatever the Eucharist is, whether flesh or a symbol, Jesus said unless you eat it you shall not have life within you. There's no "symbolic" interpretation that turns a shall not into a shall. Paul's instruction to the gentiles isn't about the sacrament.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
If eating Jesus literal flesh in the form of the Eucharist bread through transubstantiation gave life, then non-believers who eat the Eucharist bread are saved to eternal life, regardless of their non-belief. Otherwise Jesus was a liar, since you take his words literally.
You just can't take your own beliefs to their logical conclusion. No surprise there.
Actually, please read 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 closely where Paul warns and chastises those that eat and drink unworthily.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
Lastly, on this point, Jesus can give eternal life to those who obey and received the Eucharist, but we can reject that gift of eternal life with our actions.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
You saying that I have a lack of understanding of the Law is laughable by your assertion that ceremonial was not part of the Law (the Torah). Jesus said he came to fulfill every jot and tittle of the Torah. Your claim that there was nothing wrong with drinking blood directly contradicts the Torah. And Jesus could not have fulfilled the Law until he obeyed the Law perfectly his whole life until he died. But obviously he was still alive during the Last Supper, and thus still under the Law.
I never said that the ceremonial law was not part of the Torah. You are creating strawmen of others' point again.
At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted the Eucharist saying, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
There he fulfilled the old ceremonial laws and created a new and eternal covenant that transcends the old one.
The Eucharistic celebration is not an ordinary Consumption of blood but a sacramental participation in the mystery of Christ's death and resurrection the appearances of bread and wine remain but their essence is transformed through transubstantiation into the Body and Blood of Christ.
And then you also skipped over the fact (which I'll state again, in Mark 7:19, Jesus declares all foods clean -
For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
Look, I'm getting tired of maligning your lack of logical thinking, and besides it's getting me in trouble with my protestant brethren here..... but you continue to fail to apply logic correctly. As I've said to you repeatedly, if you're arguing that Jesus was literal in John 6, then eating his flesh gives you eternal life. He makes no conditions. If you're saying that Paul contradicts that, then you're saying that Jesus and Paul are in contradiction. Because if Paul is correct, then Jesus is a liar, since a person can eat Jesus' flesh and NOT have eternal life.
In Mark 7:19, the words in parenthesis ("thus, he declared all foods unclean") may have not been original. But regardless, it isn't relevant, because blood is NOT "food" in the Torah. The dietary laws spell out what kinds of MEAT you can eat from the animals, not their blood. The prohibition against eating blood is explicit and clear.
I have still have yet to hear your solution to the problem with Judas not being saved, and the apostles' instruction to Gentile believers to abstain from blood.
If there's a contradiction between Jesus and Paul, the symbolic interpretation doesn't make it go away.
The prohibitions on blood and certain types of meat are equally clear. If Jesus can change one, he can change the other.
If Judas wasn't saved, it's because "once saved, always saved" isn't true.
The instruction to Gentile believers was a pastoral one, in order to avoid giving scandal.
I don't know why you guys haved such a difficult time with this, to where I'm having to constantly having to repeat it: if you take Jesus' words literally in John 6 and in the Last Supper, then Paul saying that one can partake in the Eucharist and NOT have eternal life directly contradicts Jesus. However, the symbolic interpretation removes the contradiction, because it isn't the actual eating of something that gives someone eternal life.
Jesus can do all sorts of things - the question is, did he?
If Judas wasn't saved, it could very well have been that he was never saved to begin with (which is what Scripture indicates) So no, this doesn't disprove "once saved, always saved".
So...it was "pastoral" for the apostles to prevent Gentiles from drinking Jesus' literal blood, thus dooming them to Hell?? If that's being "pastoral", I sure hate to be cursed by them. I don't think you guys have thought this through very well.
Whatever the Eucharist is, whether flesh or a symbol, Jesus said unless you eat it you shall not have life within you. There's no "symbolic" interpretation that turns a shall not into a shall. Paul's instruction to the gentiles isn't about the sacrament.
Whether flesh or symbol, your belief has to be that if someone eats the Eucharist they have eternal life, no exceptions because Jesus didn't make any. That means it doesn't matter if someone eats it "in an unworthy manner". He ate it - he gets eternal life. That is, unless you're saying Jesus got it wrong, and Paul was right, or vice versa.
It would also mean that someone in a far away land who hears the gospel and believes in it with all his heart, but can't partake in the Eucharist - he is not saved and goes to Hell. That would then make Jesus a liar, because he said that anyone who believes in him will have eternal life. So in this case, you're making Jesus contradict himself. Either way, your literal interpretation is problematic.
The easy solution to this, which I think is quite obvious from Scripture, is that Jesus wasn't being literal. Just as he wasn't literal throughout the book of John. Symbolism was a theme for the whole book. "Eating his flesh" meant believing in the sacrifice of his body (flesh) that gives us eternal life. The disciples knew exactly what Jesus was talking about in the Last Supper and they didn't take him literally. If they did, and believed Jesus made eating all foods okay, even eating blood, then we wouldn't have seen Peter object to Jesus telling him to kilil unclean animals to eat, and we wouldn't have seen the Jerusalem council instruct the Gentiles to abstain from blood.
Coke Bear said:Is the good thief, St Dismas, in Heaven today? Absolutely; however, we should caution ourselves as to when he entered Heaven.historian said:
The thief on the cross is saved and in heaven today.
Jesus' quote in Luke 23:43 -
And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."
First, heaven wasn't open until Jesus resurrected on Easter.
Second, the word "paradise" doesn't necessarily mean 'Heaven." It comes from the paradeisos which means an enclosed park or garden. In the Septuagint version of the OT, which Jesus and the apostles used, the word is used to describe the Garden of Edan.
Finally, one could argue that "paradise" here in this context, refers to Abraham's bosom.Jesus works outside of the sacraments. We can't.historian said:
Note, he was never baptized and did not partake in the Last Supper.
St Dimas had no opportunity to be baptized or received the Eucharist. Jesus doesn't hold that against him.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
If eating Jesus literal flesh in the form of the Eucharist bread through transubstantiation gave life, then non-believers who eat the Eucharist bread are saved to eternal life, regardless of their non-belief. Otherwise Jesus was a liar, since you take his words literally.
You just can't take your own beliefs to their logical conclusion. No surprise there.
Actually, please read 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 closely where Paul warns and chastises those that eat and drink unworthily.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
Lastly, on this point, Jesus can give eternal life to those who obey and received the Eucharist, but we can reject that gift of eternal life with our actions.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
You saying that I have a lack of understanding of the Law is laughable by your assertion that ceremonial was not part of the Law (the Torah). Jesus said he came to fulfill every jot and tittle of the Torah. Your claim that there was nothing wrong with drinking blood directly contradicts the Torah. And Jesus could not have fulfilled the Law until he obeyed the Law perfectly his whole life until he died. But obviously he was still alive during the Last Supper, and thus still under the Law.
I never said that the ceremonial law was not part of the Torah. You are creating strawmen of others' point again.
At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted the Eucharist saying, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
There he fulfilled the old ceremonial laws and created a new and eternal covenant that transcends the old one.
The Eucharistic celebration is not an ordinary Consumption of blood but a sacramental participation in the mystery of Christ's death and resurrection the appearances of bread and wine remain but their essence is transformed through transubstantiation into the Body and Blood of Christ.
And then you also skipped over the fact (which I'll state again, in Mark 7:19, Jesus declares all foods clean -
For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
Look, I'm getting tired of maligning your lack of logical thinking, and besides it's getting me in trouble with my protestant brethren here..... but you continue to fail to apply logic correctly. As I've said to you repeatedly, if you're arguing that Jesus was literal in John 6, then eating his flesh gives you eternal life. He makes no conditions. If you're saying that Paul contradicts that, then you're saying that Jesus and Paul are in contradiction. Because if Paul is correct, then Jesus is a liar, since a person can eat Jesus' flesh and NOT have eternal life.
In Mark 7:19, the words in parenthesis ("thus, he declared all foods unclean") may have not been original. But regardless, it isn't relevant, because blood is NOT "food" in the Torah. The dietary laws spell out what kinds of MEAT you can eat from the animals, not their blood. The prohibition against eating blood is explicit and clear.
I have still have yet to hear your solution to the problem with Judas not being saved, and the apostles' instruction to Gentile believers to abstain from blood.
If there's a contradiction between Jesus and Paul, the symbolic interpretation doesn't make it go away.
The prohibitions on blood and certain types of meat are equally clear. If Jesus can change one, he can change the other.
If Judas wasn't saved, it's because "once saved, always saved" isn't true.
The instruction to Gentile believers was a pastoral one, in order to avoid giving scandal.
I don't know why you guys haved such a difficult time with this, to where I'm having to constantly having to repeat it: if you take Jesus' words literally in John 6 and in the Last Supper, then Paul saying that one can partake in the Eucharist and NOT have eternal life directly contradicts Jesus. However, the symbolic interpretation removes the contradiction, because it isn't the actual eating of something that gives someone eternal life.
Jesus can do all sorts of things - the question is, did he?
If Judas wasn't saved, it could very well have been that he was never saved to begin with (which is what Scripture indicates) So no, this doesn't disprove "once saved, always saved".
So...it was "pastoral" for the apostles to prevent Gentiles from drinking Jesus' literal blood, thus dooming them to Hell?? If that's being "pastoral", I sure hate to be cursed by them. I don't think you guys have thought this through very well.
Whatever the Eucharist is, whether flesh or a symbol, Jesus said unless you eat it you shall not have life within you. There's no "symbolic" interpretation that turns a shall not into a shall. Paul's instruction to the gentiles isn't about the sacrament.
Whether flesh or symbol, your belief has to be that if someone eats the Eucharist they have eternal life, no exceptions because Jesus didn't make any. That means it doesn't matter if someone eats it "in an unworthy manner". He ate it - he gets eternal life. That is, unless you're saying Jesus got it wrong, and Paul was right, or vice versa.
It would also mean that someone in a far away land who hears the gospel and believes in it with all his heart, but can't partake in the Eucharist - he is not saved and goes to Hell. That would then make Jesus a liar, because he said that anyone who believes in him will have eternal life. So in this case, you're making Jesus contradict himself. Either way, your literal interpretation is problematic.
The easy solution to this, which I think is quite obvious from Scripture, is that Jesus wasn't being literal. Just as he wasn't literal throughout the book of John. Symbolism was a theme for the whole book. "Eating his flesh" meant believing in the sacrifice of his body (flesh) that gives us eternal life. The disciples knew exactly what Jesus was talking about in the Last Supper and they didn't take him literally. If they did, and believed Jesus made eating all foods okay, even eating blood, then we wouldn't have seen Peter object to Jesus telling him to kilil unclean animals to eat, and we wouldn't have seen the Jerusalem council instruct the Gentiles to abstain from blood.
These problematic conclusions follow from your premises, not mine. Your solution is convenient, but by no means easy to accept. If the command to eat the bread and wine is itself symbolic, then which of Jesus' commands is literal? I suppose "love your neighbor" just means we should love Christ. After all, who is more worthy of love than our divine neighbor in heaven? It's like you've found a nuclear option to nullify any Scripture that doesn't appear to support sola fide. But this is silliness. There's no evidence that the early church ever believed such things. That pesky sixth chapter of John continues to proclaim otherwise. As for Peter, he was objecting to the eating of unclean animals. That has nothing to do with the Eucharist.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
If eating Jesus literal flesh in the form of the Eucharist bread through transubstantiation gave life, then non-believers who eat the Eucharist bread are saved to eternal life, regardless of their non-belief. Otherwise Jesus was a liar, since you take his words literally.
You just can't take your own beliefs to their logical conclusion. No surprise there.
Actually, please read 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 closely where Paul warns and chastises those that eat and drink unworthily.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
Lastly, on this point, Jesus can give eternal life to those who obey and received the Eucharist, but we can reject that gift of eternal life with our actions.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
You saying that I have a lack of understanding of the Law is laughable by your assertion that ceremonial was not part of the Law (the Torah). Jesus said he came to fulfill every jot and tittle of the Torah. Your claim that there was nothing wrong with drinking blood directly contradicts the Torah. And Jesus could not have fulfilled the Law until he obeyed the Law perfectly his whole life until he died. But obviously he was still alive during the Last Supper, and thus still under the Law.
I never said that the ceremonial law was not part of the Torah. You are creating strawmen of others' point again.
At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted the Eucharist saying, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
There he fulfilled the old ceremonial laws and created a new and eternal covenant that transcends the old one.
The Eucharistic celebration is not an ordinary Consumption of blood but a sacramental participation in the mystery of Christ's death and resurrection the appearances of bread and wine remain but their essence is transformed through transubstantiation into the Body and Blood of Christ.
And then you also skipped over the fact (which I'll state again, in Mark 7:19, Jesus declares all foods clean -
For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
Look, I'm getting tired of maligning your lack of logical thinking, and besides it's getting me in trouble with my protestant brethren here..... but you continue to fail to apply logic correctly. As I've said to you repeatedly, if you're arguing that Jesus was literal in John 6, then eating his flesh gives you eternal life. He makes no conditions. If you're saying that Paul contradicts that, then you're saying that Jesus and Paul are in contradiction. Because if Paul is correct, then Jesus is a liar, since a person can eat Jesus' flesh and NOT have eternal life.
In Mark 7:19, the words in parenthesis ("thus, he declared all foods unclean") may have not been original. But regardless, it isn't relevant, because blood is NOT "food" in the Torah. The dietary laws spell out what kinds of MEAT you can eat from the animals, not their blood. The prohibition against eating blood is explicit and clear.
I have still have yet to hear your solution to the problem with Judas not being saved, and the apostles' instruction to Gentile believers to abstain from blood.
If there's a contradiction between Jesus and Paul, the symbolic interpretation doesn't make it go away.
The prohibitions on blood and certain types of meat are equally clear. If Jesus can change one, he can change the other.
If Judas wasn't saved, it's because "once saved, always saved" isn't true.
The instruction to Gentile believers was a pastoral one, in order to avoid giving scandal.
I don't know why you guys haved such a difficult time with this, to where I'm having to constantly having to repeat it: if you take Jesus' words literally in John 6 and in the Last Supper, then Paul saying that one can partake in the Eucharist and NOT have eternal life directly contradicts Jesus. However, the symbolic interpretation removes the contradiction, because it isn't the actual eating of something that gives someone eternal life.
Jesus can do all sorts of things - the question is, did he?
If Judas wasn't saved, it could very well have been that he was never saved to begin with (which is what Scripture indicates) So no, this doesn't disprove "once saved, always saved".
So...it was "pastoral" for the apostles to prevent Gentiles from drinking Jesus' literal blood, thus dooming them to Hell?? If that's being "pastoral", I sure hate to be cursed by them. I don't think you guys have thought this through very well.
Whatever the Eucharist is, whether flesh or a symbol, Jesus said unless you eat it you shall not have life within you. There's no "symbolic" interpretation that turns a shall not into a shall. Paul's instruction to the gentiles isn't about the sacrament.
Whether flesh or symbol, your belief has to be that if someone eats the Eucharist they have eternal life, no exceptions because Jesus didn't make any. That means it doesn't matter if someone eats it "in an unworthy manner". He ate it - he gets eternal life. That is, unless you're saying Jesus got it wrong, and Paul was right, or vice versa.
It would also mean that someone in a far away land who hears the gospel and believes in it with all his heart, but can't partake in the Eucharist - he is not saved and goes to Hell. That would then make Jesus a liar, because he said that anyone who believes in him will have eternal life. So in this case, you're making Jesus contradict himself. Either way, your literal interpretation is problematic.
The easy solution to this, which I think is quite obvious from Scripture, is that Jesus wasn't being literal. Just as he wasn't literal throughout the book of John. Symbolism was a theme for the whole book. "Eating his flesh" meant believing in the sacrifice of his body (flesh) that gives us eternal life. The disciples knew exactly what Jesus was talking about in the Last Supper and they didn't take him literally. If they did, and believed Jesus made eating all foods okay, even eating blood, then we wouldn't have seen Peter object to Jesus telling him to kilil unclean animals to eat, and we wouldn't have seen the Jerusalem council instruct the Gentiles to abstain from blood.
These problematic conclusions follow from your premises, not mine. Your solution is convenient, but by no means easy to accept. If the command to eat the bread and wine is itself symbolic, then which of Jesus' commands is literal? I suppose "love your neighbor" just means we should love Christ. After all, who is more worthy of love than our divine neighbor in heaven? It's like you've found a nuclear option to nullify any Scripture that doesn't appear to support sola fide. But this is silliness. There's no evidence that the early church ever believed such things. That pesky sixth chapter of John continues to proclaim otherwise. As for Peter, he was objecting to the eating of unclean animals. That has nothing to do with the Eucharist.
Those problematic conclusions follow from YOUR belief that in both John 6 and the Last Supper ("this is my body") Jesus was being literal. Quit playing games. This isn't hard.
If you're argument is that if Jesus is being symbolic in John 6 and the Last Supper, that we can't know at all what is symbolic or literal is just argumentative nonsense.
Just focus on this... if Jesus was being literal about the wine being his blood, and that you must drink his literal blood or you don't have eternal life, then the apostles surely would not have told the Gentile believers to abstain from blood. So obviously, he wasn't. You're just not going to escape this.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
If eating Jesus literal flesh in the form of the Eucharist bread through transubstantiation gave life, then non-believers who eat the Eucharist bread are saved to eternal life, regardless of their non-belief. Otherwise Jesus was a liar, since you take his words literally.
You just can't take your own beliefs to their logical conclusion. No surprise there.
Actually, please read 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 closely where Paul warns and chastises those that eat and drink unworthily.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
Lastly, on this point, Jesus can give eternal life to those who obey and received the Eucharist, but we can reject that gift of eternal life with our actions.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
You saying that I have a lack of understanding of the Law is laughable by your assertion that ceremonial was not part of the Law (the Torah). Jesus said he came to fulfill every jot and tittle of the Torah. Your claim that there was nothing wrong with drinking blood directly contradicts the Torah. And Jesus could not have fulfilled the Law until he obeyed the Law perfectly his whole life until he died. But obviously he was still alive during the Last Supper, and thus still under the Law.
I never said that the ceremonial law was not part of the Torah. You are creating strawmen of others' point again.
At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted the Eucharist saying, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
There he fulfilled the old ceremonial laws and created a new and eternal covenant that transcends the old one.
The Eucharistic celebration is not an ordinary Consumption of blood but a sacramental participation in the mystery of Christ's death and resurrection the appearances of bread and wine remain but their essence is transformed through transubstantiation into the Body and Blood of Christ.
And then you also skipped over the fact (which I'll state again, in Mark 7:19, Jesus declares all foods clean -
For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
Look, I'm getting tired of maligning your lack of logical thinking, and besides it's getting me in trouble with my protestant brethren here..... but you continue to fail to apply logic correctly. As I've said to you repeatedly, if you're arguing that Jesus was literal in John 6, then eating his flesh gives you eternal life. He makes no conditions. If you're saying that Paul contradicts that, then you're saying that Jesus and Paul are in contradiction. Because if Paul is correct, then Jesus is a liar, since a person can eat Jesus' flesh and NOT have eternal life.
In Mark 7:19, the words in parenthesis ("thus, he declared all foods unclean") may have not been original. But regardless, it isn't relevant, because blood is NOT "food" in the Torah. The dietary laws spell out what kinds of MEAT you can eat from the animals, not their blood. The prohibition against eating blood is explicit and clear.
I have still have yet to hear your solution to the problem with Judas not being saved, and the apostles' instruction to Gentile believers to abstain from blood.
If there's a contradiction between Jesus and Paul, the symbolic interpretation doesn't make it go away.
The prohibitions on blood and certain types of meat are equally clear. If Jesus can change one, he can change the other.
If Judas wasn't saved, it's because "once saved, always saved" isn't true.
The instruction to Gentile believers was a pastoral one, in order to avoid giving scandal.
I don't know why you guys haved such a difficult time with this, to where I'm having to constantly having to repeat it: if you take Jesus' words literally in John 6 and in the Last Supper, then Paul saying that one can partake in the Eucharist and NOT have eternal life directly contradicts Jesus. However, the symbolic interpretation removes the contradiction, because it isn't the actual eating of something that gives someone eternal life.
Jesus can do all sorts of things - the question is, did he?
If Judas wasn't saved, it could very well have been that he was never saved to begin with (which is what Scripture indicates) So no, this doesn't disprove "once saved, always saved".
So...it was "pastoral" for the apostles to prevent Gentiles from drinking Jesus' literal blood, thus dooming them to Hell?? If that's being "pastoral", I sure hate to be cursed by them. I don't think you guys have thought this through very well.
Whatever the Eucharist is, whether flesh or a symbol, Jesus said unless you eat it you shall not have life within you. There's no "symbolic" interpretation that turns a shall not into a shall. Paul's instruction to the gentiles isn't about the sacrament.
Whether flesh or symbol, your belief has to be that if someone eats the Eucharist they have eternal life, no exceptions because Jesus didn't make any. That means it doesn't matter if someone eats it "in an unworthy manner". He ate it - he gets eternal life. That is, unless you're saying Jesus got it wrong, and Paul was right, or vice versa.
It would also mean that someone in a far away land who hears the gospel and believes in it with all his heart, but can't partake in the Eucharist - he is not saved and goes to Hell. That would then make Jesus a liar, because he said that anyone who believes in him will have eternal life. So in this case, you're making Jesus contradict himself. Either way, your literal interpretation is problematic.
The easy solution to this, which I think is quite obvious from Scripture, is that Jesus wasn't being literal. Just as he wasn't literal throughout the book of John. Symbolism was a theme for the whole book. "Eating his flesh" meant believing in the sacrifice of his body (flesh) that gives us eternal life. The disciples knew exactly what Jesus was talking about in the Last Supper and they didn't take him literally. If they did, and believed Jesus made eating all foods okay, even eating blood, then we wouldn't have seen Peter object to Jesus telling him to kilil unclean animals to eat, and we wouldn't have seen the Jerusalem council instruct the Gentiles to abstain from blood.
These problematic conclusions follow from your premises, not mine. Your solution is convenient, but by no means easy to accept. If the command to eat the bread and wine is itself symbolic, then which of Jesus' commands is literal? I suppose "love your neighbor" just means we should love Christ. After all, who is more worthy of love than our divine neighbor in heaven? It's like you've found a nuclear option to nullify any Scripture that doesn't appear to support sola fide. But this is silliness. There's no evidence that the early church ever believed such things. That pesky sixth chapter of John continues to proclaim otherwise. As for Peter, he was objecting to the eating of unclean animals. That has nothing to do with the Eucharist.
Those problematic conclusions follow from YOUR belief that in both John 6 and the Last Supper ("this is my body") Jesus was being literal. Quit playing games. This isn't hard.
If you're argument is that if Jesus is being symbolic in John 6 and the Last Supper, that we can't know at all what is symbolic or literal is just argumentative nonsense.
Just focus on this... if Jesus was being literal about the wine being his blood, and that you must drink his literal blood or you don't have eternal life, then the apostles surely would not have told the Gentile believers to abstain from blood. So obviously, he wasn't. You're just not going to escape this.
The Apostles never told anyone to abstain from the blood of Christ.
Your argument, that the command to celebrate the Lord's Supper is just a metaphor for "belief," is quite unique.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
If eating Jesus literal flesh in the form of the Eucharist bread through transubstantiation gave life, then non-believers who eat the Eucharist bread are saved to eternal life, regardless of their non-belief. Otherwise Jesus was a liar, since you take his words literally.
You just can't take your own beliefs to their logical conclusion. No surprise there.
Actually, please read 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 closely where Paul warns and chastises those that eat and drink unworthily.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
Lastly, on this point, Jesus can give eternal life to those who obey and received the Eucharist, but we can reject that gift of eternal life with our actions.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
You saying that I have a lack of understanding of the Law is laughable by your assertion that ceremonial was not part of the Law (the Torah). Jesus said he came to fulfill every jot and tittle of the Torah. Your claim that there was nothing wrong with drinking blood directly contradicts the Torah. And Jesus could not have fulfilled the Law until he obeyed the Law perfectly his whole life until he died. But obviously he was still alive during the Last Supper, and thus still under the Law.
I never said that the ceremonial law was not part of the Torah. You are creating strawmen of others' point again.
At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted the Eucharist saying, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
There he fulfilled the old ceremonial laws and created a new and eternal covenant that transcends the old one.
The Eucharistic celebration is not an ordinary Consumption of blood but a sacramental participation in the mystery of Christ's death and resurrection the appearances of bread and wine remain but their essence is transformed through transubstantiation into the Body and Blood of Christ.
And then you also skipped over the fact (which I'll state again, in Mark 7:19, Jesus declares all foods clean -
For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
Look, I'm getting tired of maligning your lack of logical thinking, and besides it's getting me in trouble with my protestant brethren here..... but you continue to fail to apply logic correctly. As I've said to you repeatedly, if you're arguing that Jesus was literal in John 6, then eating his flesh gives you eternal life. He makes no conditions. If you're saying that Paul contradicts that, then you're saying that Jesus and Paul are in contradiction. Because if Paul is correct, then Jesus is a liar, since a person can eat Jesus' flesh and NOT have eternal life.
In Mark 7:19, the words in parenthesis ("thus, he declared all foods unclean") may have not been original. But regardless, it isn't relevant, because blood is NOT "food" in the Torah. The dietary laws spell out what kinds of MEAT you can eat from the animals, not their blood. The prohibition against eating blood is explicit and clear.
I have still have yet to hear your solution to the problem with Judas not being saved, and the apostles' instruction to Gentile believers to abstain from blood.
If there's a contradiction between Jesus and Paul, the symbolic interpretation doesn't make it go away.
The prohibitions on blood and certain types of meat are equally clear. If Jesus can change one, he can change the other.
If Judas wasn't saved, it's because "once saved, always saved" isn't true.
The instruction to Gentile believers was a pastoral one, in order to avoid giving scandal.
I don't know why you guys haved such a difficult time with this, to where I'm having to constantly having to repeat it: if you take Jesus' words literally in John 6 and in the Last Supper, then Paul saying that one can partake in the Eucharist and NOT have eternal life directly contradicts Jesus. However, the symbolic interpretation removes the contradiction, because it isn't the actual eating of something that gives someone eternal life.
Jesus can do all sorts of things - the question is, did he?
If Judas wasn't saved, it could very well have been that he was never saved to begin with (which is what Scripture indicates) So no, this doesn't disprove "once saved, always saved".
So...it was "pastoral" for the apostles to prevent Gentiles from drinking Jesus' literal blood, thus dooming them to Hell?? If that's being "pastoral", I sure hate to be cursed by them. I don't think you guys have thought this through very well.
Whatever the Eucharist is, whether flesh or a symbol, Jesus said unless you eat it you shall not have life within you. There's no "symbolic" interpretation that turns a shall not into a shall. Paul's instruction to the gentiles isn't about the sacrament.
Whether flesh or symbol, your belief has to be that if someone eats the Eucharist they have eternal life, no exceptions because Jesus didn't make any. That means it doesn't matter if someone eats it "in an unworthy manner". He ate it - he gets eternal life. That is, unless you're saying Jesus got it wrong, and Paul was right, or vice versa.
It would also mean that someone in a far away land who hears the gospel and believes in it with all his heart, but can't partake in the Eucharist - he is not saved and goes to Hell. That would then make Jesus a liar, because he said that anyone who believes in him will have eternal life. So in this case, you're making Jesus contradict himself. Either way, your literal interpretation is problematic.
The easy solution to this, which I think is quite obvious from Scripture, is that Jesus wasn't being literal. Just as he wasn't literal throughout the book of John. Symbolism was a theme for the whole book. "Eating his flesh" meant believing in the sacrifice of his body (flesh) that gives us eternal life. The disciples knew exactly what Jesus was talking about in the Last Supper and they didn't take him literally. If they did, and believed Jesus made eating all foods okay, even eating blood, then we wouldn't have seen Peter object to Jesus telling him to kilil unclean animals to eat, and we wouldn't have seen the Jerusalem council instruct the Gentiles to abstain from blood.
These problematic conclusions follow from your premises, not mine. Your solution is convenient, but by no means easy to accept. If the command to eat the bread and wine is itself symbolic, then which of Jesus' commands is literal? I suppose "love your neighbor" just means we should love Christ. After all, who is more worthy of love than our divine neighbor in heaven? It's like you've found a nuclear option to nullify any Scripture that doesn't appear to support sola fide. But this is silliness. There's no evidence that the early church ever believed such things. That pesky sixth chapter of John continues to proclaim otherwise. As for Peter, he was objecting to the eating of unclean animals. That has nothing to do with the Eucharist.
Those problematic conclusions follow from YOUR belief that in both John 6 and the Last Supper ("this is my body") Jesus was being literal. Quit playing games. This isn't hard.
If you're argument is that if Jesus is being symbolic in John 6 and the Last Supper, that we can't know at all what is symbolic or literal is just argumentative nonsense.
Just focus on this... if Jesus was being literal about the wine being his blood, and that you must drink his literal blood or you don't have eternal life, then the apostles surely would not have told the Gentile believers to abstain from blood. So obviously, he wasn't. You're just not going to escape this.
The Apostles never told anyone to abstain from the blood of Christ.
Your argument, that the command to celebrate the Lord's Supper is just a metaphor for "belief," is quite unique.
Good lord, you just aren't that bright.
Oldbear83 said:
Taking one verse you think says something you like and ignoring everything else, is not a good plan.
God gave us all those books for a reason.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
If eating Jesus literal flesh in the form of the Eucharist bread through transubstantiation gave life, then non-believers who eat the Eucharist bread are saved to eternal life, regardless of their non-belief. Otherwise Jesus was a liar, since you take his words literally.
You just can't take your own beliefs to their logical conclusion. No surprise there.
Actually, please read 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 closely where Paul warns and chastises those that eat and drink unworthily.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
Lastly, on this point, Jesus can give eternal life to those who obey and received the Eucharist, but we can reject that gift of eternal life with our actions.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
You saying that I have a lack of understanding of the Law is laughable by your assertion that ceremonial was not part of the Law (the Torah). Jesus said he came to fulfill every jot and tittle of the Torah. Your claim that there was nothing wrong with drinking blood directly contradicts the Torah. And Jesus could not have fulfilled the Law until he obeyed the Law perfectly his whole life until he died. But obviously he was still alive during the Last Supper, and thus still under the Law.
I never said that the ceremonial law was not part of the Torah. You are creating strawmen of others' point again.
At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted the Eucharist saying, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
There he fulfilled the old ceremonial laws and created a new and eternal covenant that transcends the old one.
The Eucharistic celebration is not an ordinary Consumption of blood but a sacramental participation in the mystery of Christ's death and resurrection the appearances of bread and wine remain but their essence is transformed through transubstantiation into the Body and Blood of Christ.
And then you also skipped over the fact (which I'll state again, in Mark 7:19, Jesus declares all foods clean -
For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
Look, I'm getting tired of maligning your lack of logical thinking, and besides it's getting me in trouble with my protestant brethren here..... but you continue to fail to apply logic correctly. As I've said to you repeatedly, if you're arguing that Jesus was literal in John 6, then eating his flesh gives you eternal life. He makes no conditions. If you're saying that Paul contradicts that, then you're saying that Jesus and Paul are in contradiction. Because if Paul is correct, then Jesus is a liar, since a person can eat Jesus' flesh and NOT have eternal life.
In Mark 7:19, the words in parenthesis ("thus, he declared all foods unclean") may have not been original. But regardless, it isn't relevant, because blood is NOT "food" in the Torah. The dietary laws spell out what kinds of MEAT you can eat from the animals, not their blood. The prohibition against eating blood is explicit and clear.
I have still have yet to hear your solution to the problem with Judas not being saved, and the apostles' instruction to Gentile believers to abstain from blood.
If there's a contradiction between Jesus and Paul, the symbolic interpretation doesn't make it go away.
The prohibitions on blood and certain types of meat are equally clear. If Jesus can change one, he can change the other.
If Judas wasn't saved, it's because "once saved, always saved" isn't true.
The instruction to Gentile believers was a pastoral one, in order to avoid giving scandal.
I don't know why you guys haved such a difficult time with this, to where I'm having to constantly having to repeat it: if you take Jesus' words literally in John 6 and in the Last Supper, then Paul saying that one can partake in the Eucharist and NOT have eternal life directly contradicts Jesus. However, the symbolic interpretation removes the contradiction, because it isn't the actual eating of something that gives someone eternal life.
Jesus can do all sorts of things - the question is, did he?
If Judas wasn't saved, it could very well have been that he was never saved to begin with (which is what Scripture indicates) So no, this doesn't disprove "once saved, always saved".
So...it was "pastoral" for the apostles to prevent Gentiles from drinking Jesus' literal blood, thus dooming them to Hell?? If that's being "pastoral", I sure hate to be cursed by them. I don't think you guys have thought this through very well.
Whatever the Eucharist is, whether flesh or a symbol, Jesus said unless you eat it you shall not have life within you. There's no "symbolic" interpretation that turns a shall not into a shall. Paul's instruction to the gentiles isn't about the sacrament.
Whether flesh or symbol, your belief has to be that if someone eats the Eucharist they have eternal life, no exceptions because Jesus didn't make any. That means it doesn't matter if someone eats it "in an unworthy manner". He ate it - he gets eternal life. That is, unless you're saying Jesus got it wrong, and Paul was right, or vice versa.
It would also mean that someone in a far away land who hears the gospel and believes in it with all his heart, but can't partake in the Eucharist - he is not saved and goes to Hell. That would then make Jesus a liar, because he said that anyone who believes in him will have eternal life. So in this case, you're making Jesus contradict himself. Either way, your literal interpretation is problematic.
The easy solution to this, which I think is quite obvious from Scripture, is that Jesus wasn't being literal. Just as he wasn't literal throughout the book of John. Symbolism was a theme for the whole book. "Eating his flesh" meant believing in the sacrifice of his body (flesh) that gives us eternal life. The disciples knew exactly what Jesus was talking about in the Last Supper and they didn't take him literally. If they did, and believed Jesus made eating all foods okay, even eating blood, then we wouldn't have seen Peter object to Jesus telling him to kilil unclean animals to eat, and we wouldn't have seen the Jerusalem council instruct the Gentiles to abstain from blood.
These problematic conclusions follow from your premises, not mine. Your solution is convenient, but by no means easy to accept. If the command to eat the bread and wine is itself symbolic, then which of Jesus' commands is literal? I suppose "love your neighbor" just means we should love Christ. After all, who is more worthy of love than our divine neighbor in heaven? It's like you've found a nuclear option to nullify any Scripture that doesn't appear to support sola fide. But this is silliness. There's no evidence that the early church ever believed such things. That pesky sixth chapter of John continues to proclaim otherwise. As for Peter, he was objecting to the eating of unclean animals. That has nothing to do with the Eucharist.
Those problematic conclusions follow from YOUR belief that in both John 6 and the Last Supper ("this is my body") Jesus was being literal. Quit playing games. This isn't hard.
If you're argument is that if Jesus is being symbolic in John 6 and the Last Supper, that we can't know at all what is symbolic or literal is just argumentative nonsense.
Just focus on this... if Jesus was being literal about the wine being his blood, and that you must drink his literal blood or you don't have eternal life, then the apostles surely would not have told the Gentile believers to abstain from blood. So obviously, he wasn't. You're just not going to escape this.
The Apostles never told anyone to abstain from the blood of Christ.
Your argument, that the command to celebrate the Lord's Supper is just a metaphor for "belief," is quite unique.
Good lord, you just aren't that bright.
I'm talking to a brick wall. You're just not understanding what I'm saying.
One of those statements is literal, and the other is not. One does not simply throw a blanket of symbolic interpretation over entire chapter of text without regard to context.
Oldbear83 said:
** sigh **
The bickering here would give the Holy Spirit a migraine.
Now I'm not going to try to prove my opinion is right here, but it occurs to me that we have all attended communion as believers in a community of faith.
Speaking for myself, when I go to communion I start by searching my heart to make sure I am coming to God in good conscience and for good purpose. Then when I approach the altar, I note those around me, not to judge or seek entertainment, but to respect their own devotion in action.
That is, for me communion is an act of community, and as we seek to find union with God we do so as a people, not on our own.
It is my belief that this is the way to please God, to grow in faith and trust, and to become more the people we are meant to be.
I will leave the details to those still obsessed with arguing over minutia.
Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:
Taking one verse you think says something you like and ignoring everything else, is not a good plan.
God gave us all those books for a reason.
Oh the irony
You're doing great work here. I admire your patience and depth of knowledge.Coke Bear said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
If eating Jesus literal flesh in the form of the Eucharist bread through transubstantiation gave life, then non-believers who eat the Eucharist bread are saved to eternal life, regardless of their non-belief. Otherwise Jesus was a liar, since you take his words literally.
You just can't take your own beliefs to their logical conclusion. No surprise there.
Actually, please read 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 closely where Paul warns and chastises those that eat and drink unworthily.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
Lastly, on this point, Jesus can give eternal life to those who obey and received the Eucharist, but we can reject that gift of eternal life with our actions.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
You saying that I have a lack of understanding of the Law is laughable by your assertion that ceremonial was not part of the Law (the Torah). Jesus said he came to fulfill every jot and tittle of the Torah. Your claim that there was nothing wrong with drinking blood directly contradicts the Torah. And Jesus could not have fulfilled the Law until he obeyed the Law perfectly his whole life until he died. But obviously he was still alive during the Last Supper, and thus still under the Law.
I never said that the ceremonial law was not part of the Torah. You are creating strawmen of others' point again.
At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted the Eucharist saying, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
There he fulfilled the old ceremonial laws and created a new and eternal covenant that transcends the old one.
The Eucharistic celebration is not an ordinary Consumption of blood but a sacramental participation in the mystery of Christ's death and resurrection the appearances of bread and wine remain but their essence is transformed through transubstantiation into the Body and Blood of Christ.
And then you also skipped over the fact (which I'll state again, in Mark 7:19, Jesus declares all foods clean -
For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
Look, I'm getting tired of maligning your lack of logical thinking, and besides it's getting me in trouble with my protestant brethren here..... but you continue to fail to apply logic correctly. As I've said to you repeatedly, if you're arguing that Jesus was literal in John 6, then eating his flesh gives you eternal life. He makes no conditions. If you're saying that Paul contradicts that, then you're saying that Jesus and Paul are in contradiction. Because if Paul is correct, then Jesus is a liar, since a person can eat Jesus' flesh and NOT have eternal life.
In Mark 7:19, the words in parenthesis ("thus, he declared all foods unclean") may have not been original. But regardless, it isn't relevant, because blood is NOT "food" in the Torah. The dietary laws spell out what kinds of MEAT you can eat from the animals, not their blood. The prohibition against eating blood is explicit and clear.
I have still have yet to hear your solution to the problem with Judas not being saved, and the apostles' instruction to Gentile believers to abstain from blood.
If there's a contradiction between Jesus and Paul, the symbolic interpretation doesn't make it go away.
The prohibitions on blood and certain types of meat are equally clear. If Jesus can change one, he can change the other.
If Judas wasn't saved, it's because "once saved, always saved" isn't true.
The instruction to Gentile believers was a pastoral one, in order to avoid giving scandal.
Sam, you continue to amaze me. You succinctly and accurately responded so much better than I could have.
Just to reiterate, there is NO contradiction between Jesus and Paul. It is your false assumption of OSAS, that is getting in the way of the Truth. Once you finally accept that we can lose our salvation (which has been believed throughout history), all of the puzzle pieces fit together.
Irrespective of whether you accept the Real Presence or not, it would be intellectually dishonest to argue that the early Church did NOT believe that it was Jesus' true Body and Blood.
Many of the pagans and Romans (in the first and second century) accused those Christians of cannibalism because they misunderstood what happens at the mass.
One could argue that early Christians were wrong in their assumptions; however, one can't honestly argue that they didn't believe in the Real Presence.
Sam Lowry said:Coke Bear said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
If eating Jesus literal flesh in the form of the Eucharist bread through transubstantiation gave life, then non-believers who eat the Eucharist bread are saved to eternal life, regardless of their non-belief. Otherwise Jesus was a liar, since you take his words literally.
You just can't take your own beliefs to their logical conclusion. No surprise there.
Actually, please read 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 closely where Paul warns and chastises those that eat and drink unworthily.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
Lastly, on this point, Jesus can give eternal life to those who obey and received the Eucharist, but we can reject that gift of eternal life with our actions.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
You saying that I have a lack of understanding of the Law is laughable by your assertion that ceremonial was not part of the Law (the Torah). Jesus said he came to fulfill every jot and tittle of the Torah. Your claim that there was nothing wrong with drinking blood directly contradicts the Torah. And Jesus could not have fulfilled the Law until he obeyed the Law perfectly his whole life until he died. But obviously he was still alive during the Last Supper, and thus still under the Law.
I never said that the ceremonial law was not part of the Torah. You are creating strawmen of others' point again.
At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted the Eucharist saying, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
There he fulfilled the old ceremonial laws and created a new and eternal covenant that transcends the old one.
The Eucharistic celebration is not an ordinary Consumption of blood but a sacramental participation in the mystery of Christ's death and resurrection the appearances of bread and wine remain but their essence is transformed through transubstantiation into the Body and Blood of Christ.
And then you also skipped over the fact (which I'll state again, in Mark 7:19, Jesus declares all foods clean -
For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
Look, I'm getting tired of maligning your lack of logical thinking, and besides it's getting me in trouble with my protestant brethren here..... but you continue to fail to apply logic correctly. As I've said to you repeatedly, if you're arguing that Jesus was literal in John 6, then eating his flesh gives you eternal life. He makes no conditions. If you're saying that Paul contradicts that, then you're saying that Jesus and Paul are in contradiction. Because if Paul is correct, then Jesus is a liar, since a person can eat Jesus' flesh and NOT have eternal life.
In Mark 7:19, the words in parenthesis ("thus, he declared all foods unclean") may have not been original. But regardless, it isn't relevant, because blood is NOT "food" in the Torah. The dietary laws spell out what kinds of MEAT you can eat from the animals, not their blood. The prohibition against eating blood is explicit and clear.
I have still have yet to hear your solution to the problem with Judas not being saved, and the apostles' instruction to Gentile believers to abstain from blood.
If there's a contradiction between Jesus and Paul, the symbolic interpretation doesn't make it go away.
The prohibitions on blood and certain types of meat are equally clear. If Jesus can change one, he can change the other.
If Judas wasn't saved, it's because "once saved, always saved" isn't true.
The instruction to Gentile believers was a pastoral one, in order to avoid giving scandal.
Sam, you continue to amaze me. You succinctly and accurately responded so much better than I could have.
Just to reiterate, there is NO contradiction between Jesus and Paul. It is your false assumption of OSAS, that is getting in the way of the Truth. Once you finally accept that we can lose our salvation (which has been believed throughout history), all of the puzzle pieces fit together.
Irrespective of whether you accept the Real Presence or not, it would be intellectually dishonest to argue that the early Church did NOT believe that it was Jesus' true Body and Blood.
Many of the pagans and Romans (in the first and second century) accused those Christians of cannibalism because they misunderstood what happens at the mass.
One could argue that early Christians were wrong in their assumptions; however, one can't honestly argue that they didn't believe in the Real Presence.
You're doing great work here. I admire your patience and depth of knowledge.
So much anti-Catholic sentiment is based on misunderstanding.
Coke Bear said:Is the good thief, St Dismas, in Heaven today? Absolutely; however, we should caution ourselves as to when he entered Heaven.historian said:
The thief on the cross is saved and in heaven today.
Jesus' quote in Luke 23:43 -
And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."
First, heaven wasn't open until Jesus resurrected on Easter.
Second, the word "paradise" doesn't necessarily mean 'Heaven." It comes from the paradeisos which means an enclosed park or garden. In the Septuagint version of the OT, which Jesus and the apostles used, the word is used to describe the Garden of Edan.
Finally, one could argue that "paradise" here in this context, refers to Abraham's bosom.Jesus works outside of the sacraments. We can't.historian said:
Note, he was never baptized and did not partake in the Last Supper.
St Dimas had no opportunity to be baptized or received the Eucharist. Jesus doesn't hold that against him.
With all due respect, isn't calling the Eucharist a "symbol" when -historian said:
You are making the same mistake that the religious leaders of Jesus's day made: adding man-made rules & interpretations to God's word. There is nothing in scripture to support those views. The best one could do is to take isolated verses out of context. The result is distortion and error.
Coke Bear said:With all due respect, isn't calling the Eucharist a "symbol" when -historian said:
You are making the same mistake that the religious leaders of Jesus's day made: adding man-made rules & interpretations to God's word. There is nothing in scripture to support those views. The best one could do is to take isolated verses out of context. The result is distortion and error.
a) Jesus NEVER calls it a symbol
b) Jesus flat out tells us that it IS His Body & Blood
- a man-made tradition?
xfrodobagginsx said:Coke Bear said:historian said:
You are making the same mistake that the religious leaders of Jesus's day made: adding man-made rules & interpretations to God's word. There is nothing in scripture to support those views. The best one could do is to take isolated verses out of context. The result is distortion and error.
With all due respect, isn't calling the Eucharist a "symbol" when -
a) Jesus NEVER calls it a symbol
b) Jesus flat out tells us that it IS His Body & Blood
- a man-made tradition?
Jesus flat put said that these things were SPIRIT, meaning that they are NOT physical
..
Coke Bear said:historian said:
You are making the same mistake that the religious leaders of Jesus's day made: adding man-made rules & interpretations to God's word. There is nothing in scripture to support those views. The best one could do is to take isolated verses out of context. The result is distortion and error.
With all due respect, isn't calling the Eucharist a "symbol" when -
a) Jesus NEVER calls it a symbol
b) Jesus flat out tells us that it IS His Body & Blood
- a man-made tradition?
Coke Bear said:xfrodobagginsx said:Coke Bear said:historian said:
You are making the same mistake that the religious leaders of Jesus's day made: adding man-made rules & interpretations to God's word. There is nothing in scripture to support those views. The best one could do is to take isolated verses out of context. The result is distortion and error.
With all due respect, isn't calling the Eucharist a "symbol" when -
a) Jesus NEVER calls it a symbol
b) Jesus flat out tells us that it IS His Body & Blood
- a man-made tradition?
Jesus flat put said that these things were SPIRIT, meaning that they are NOT physical
..
Please show me chapter and verse ANYWHERE in the Bible where "Spirit" (pneuma in the Greek) as used in John 6 is EVER used to mean "symbol".
Question: where does Jesus mention "Spirit" here?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Your question makes no sense. "Spirit" does not have to be used to mean "symbol" in order for his words to have been symbolic.
Now think with me - look back a couple of chapters from where you are to John 4:
"Jesus said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." - John 4:13-14
Question: was Jesus talking about actual, physical water, H2O, here?
Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Your question makes no sense. "Spirit" does not have to be used to mean "symbol" in order for his words to have been symbolic.
Now think with me - look back a couple of chapters from where you are to John 4:
"Jesus said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." - John 4:13-14
Question: was Jesus talking about actual, physical water, H2O, here?
Question: where does Jesus mention "Spirit" here?
The claim was that "spirit" meant "symbol". I clearly does not.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Your question makes no sense. "Spirit" does not have to be used to mean "symbol" in order for his words to have been symbolic.
Now think with me - look back a couple of chapters from where you are to John 4:
"Jesus said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." - John 4:13-14
Question: was Jesus talking about actual, physical water, H2O, here?
Question: where does Jesus mention "Spirit" here?
The claim was that "spirit" meant "symbol". I clearly does not.
Wanna answer the question, or do you have to play games of avoidance like many of your Catholic brethren?
