Search results

Try READING post #150, 151, 160. Your mandate that the verb "to be" requires a CHANGE from one reality to an entirely different one is not only silly but mandates you to embrace several heresies (your mandate requires you reject the Trinity and the Two Natures of Christ, for example, all based...

Then YOU need to produce some Scripture verses that support the Catholic Church's dogmas of: + The Assumption of Mary + The INFALLIBILITY of the Roman Pontiff (well, let's start with those two.... when you PROVE them to be CORRECT to the level claimed according to the words we all can see in...

You said that Jesus saying "This IS...." requires, mandates, necessitates that one thing CHANGED INTO something else. It's YOUR mandate. Thus, according to your mandate, when Peter says, "You are (same verb as "IS") the Christ, the Son of the Living God" ergo you insist this MANDATES a change...

Correct. NOTHING about the new invented dogma of the RC denomination before the 11th Century (some say the 9th, but I'll agree with you and go with the 11th). How heretical. So, we can't have the Trinity WITHOUT one person changing into another? We can't have Jesus as BOTH FULLY...

No, he did not lie. He did not say, "This has CHANGED from one reality into a different one via a very specific physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents that only SEEM to be real or only have the appearance of some...

True, the church doesn't but the RC denomination does.... as dogma since 1551. No, it doesn't hold that the "forms" change, it reaches that the bread and wine CHANGE - via the precise, technical, physical mechanism of an alchemic "transubstantiation" (the very word it uses for this "change"...

Epostle1, I wish you would so inform BreadofLife and every Catholic teacher I ever had..... Luther quoted the Indulgence Sellers pushing the sale of these with sermons that were pure and radical Pelagianism.... He reputiated that (THINKING the RC denomination would not only support him in...

Well, the RC denomination teaches that (I don't know too many Catholics who believe it). But as you've repeatedly proven, NOWHERE did Jesus or Paul speak of anything changing into anything - by means of an alchemic transubstantiation or any other physical means... NOWHERE did Jesus or Paul...

Correct. Thanks for proving my point.... Yup, not even one mention of the new Eucharistic dogma of the RCC, Transubstantiation. Yup, they all affirm the Lutheran position of Real Presence, but not one taught Transubstantiation. .

Wrong. Perhaps why no one "saw" this in Scripture for over 1,000 years is because the words are: "is" "body" "blood" "bread" "wine" "forgiveness". No one saw anything about "change via the precise technical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and...

I agree. Therefore, He never founded the RCC or any other denomination. The church Jesus founded is the one, holy, catholic, community of BELIEVERS - not any denomination. Again, you make ABSURD and entirely unsubstantiated claims..... I know hundreds of Catholics and NOT TWO of them agree...

See post 124 above. Correct, Transubstantiation comes no earlier than the 12th Century and was made dogma in the 16th. Correct, IF you bothered to read what Jesus actually SAID and what Paul actually PENNED, you'll notice these words: "Is" "Body" "Blood" "Bread" "Wine" "Forgiveness."...

Let's look carefully at God's Scripture here - very carefully noting what is stated and what is not. Please begin by reading both very carefully. Matthew 26:26-29 "Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat, this is my...

Right. Essentially, that's the invention of the RC Denomination in the 13th Century and was made its new, unique Eucharistic Dogma in 1551. And yes, as you've repeatedly shown, it's NOT what Jesus said or Paul penned... and it's not what John 6 indicates. NOWHERE, in any Eucharistic text...

Every church is. AT LEAST as much as yours. So what? Yup. But He built no denominations (in spite of the RCC and LDS foundationally and egotistically claiming otherwise) The church Jesus founded is the one, holy, catholic communion of all believing PEOPLE, He founded no denominations -...

Thank you for that bold, stunning affirmation of Position One (Real Presence, the Lutheran view) and showing the complete lack of anything Scriptural for the Position Two (Transubstantiation). .

CHRISTIANS are united with each other and with Jesus.... no denomination is (including the RC one). But you are confirming my point: SOME Catholics ignore all the great things about their denomination and instead mindlessly and perpetually parrot old, worn CLAIMS that are meaningless, at...

No, you just claimed the RC Denomination has all the awesome, amazing, incredible, wonderful doctrinal UNITY!!! You just have refused to say with WHAT? Why? Because it's with NONE. NO better than any other denomination, church, sect or cult. The RC has DIFFERENT doctrines that all...

The claim is that the RC Denomination has full doctrinal agreement. What is never said is with WHAT - and the reason is obvious, because it's with NONE (really grand, huh? SO impressive, wow!). You implied the RC was something special in having unity with NONE but then you had to admit that...

Right. Thus bringing up John 6 in this thread is nonsense. IF John 6 were about the Eucharist, it would support Position 1 (Real Presence) but it would leave position 2 (Transubstantiation) entirely, wholly, completely unsubstantiated. Wrong. There is nothing in any text about anything...