The Bread of Life

[tom55]

It's the one you responded to here.
Yes that much is obvious, but, the point is you haven't proven transubstantiation, you just assert it. The practice of communion was a point of celebration in Jesus's sacrifice as He himself commanded. He clearly identified the bread and wine as bread and wine, even though he referred to it as his body and blood metaphorically.
As I said quoting scripture involves using the reference not just paraphrasing what it says. I know Scripture but in order to avoid equivocation the common practice is to quote the verse using the reference. If you actually do that then you don't have to show the words because the site creates an automatic link to the verse using a pop up box. It also confirms that you're not miss quoting or paraphrasing the scripture to suit your own purposes.

One of the LAST things Jesus did with his Apostles was break bread and shared wine (communion) saying “do this in remembrance of me”. One of the FIRST things he did after his resurrection was break bread with his disciples. He was wasn't recognized by them until he broke the bread in Luke 24:35-48. Communion was one of the last things he did before he died and one of the first things he did after he rose from the dead so it was important to Jesus. So now we must ask ourselves WHY was it important to him?

Bread and wine are first mentioned in Genesis 14:18 when the priest Melchizedek “brought out bread and wine” as a sacrifice. According to the Letter to the Hebrews 7:17, Jesus is identified as "a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek". In Exodus 16:4 God said to Moses, “Behold, I will rain bread (manna) from Heaven for you…”. And when the people asked what it (manna) was Moses told them “It is the bread which the Lord has given you to eat.” Exodus 16:15


Jesus said in John 6 I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died (reference to Exodus16:4). This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh. “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. “This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever”.

In the OT the people who ate the manna (bread) that God sent them while they were in the wilderness died because it was just normal bread. The new manna or bread is Jesus flesh and He is not normal bread. He, his flesh, is the bread of life and he who eats this bread lives forever. If YOU believe that the bread Jesus offers (his flesh) is just like the bread of the OT then what YOU believe contradicts what Jesus said. Paul later re-affirms in 1 Corinthians 10:15 what Jesus said. Paul later WARNS us in 1 Corinthians 11:27-28 that man would be bringing "damnation to himself" if we partake in communion in an unworthy manner and shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord saying that we should examine himself.

Clement (a student of Peter and Paul) wrote in his Letter to the Corinthians: “In the same way, my brothers, when we offer our own Eucharist to God, each one should keep to his own degree (calling)” St. Ignatius of Antioch (a student of the Apostle John) in his Epistles to the Philippians wrote of “one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with His Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice” In his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans he wrote: They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. (earlychristianwritings.com) The Didache says: But let none eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized in the Lord's Name. For concerning this also did the Lord say, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs." (earlychristianwritings.com) Acts 2:42, which would have been written and occurred the same time frame that Clement and St. Ignatius were alive and the Didache was written, talks about the "breaking of bread". So the first Christians (the ones in the bible) and the early Christians (Clement, Ignatius and writers of the Didache) all practiced and believed the same thing.

Athenagoras of Athens wrote around 180 AD that the early Christians were being accused of THYSTEAN FEAST (earlychristianwritings.com). Thyestean Feast is marked by the consumption of human flesh. In other words the non-Christians, who did not participate in church services, thought the early Christians were eating real flesh during communion. Why did they think that? Because the early Christians believed what Jesus said when He said it is His body.

So I ask you AGAIN StanJ: How one can be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord when they eat the bread and drink the cup if it is just a metaphor? WHY would someone need to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup if it is just bread and wine or a symbol? How can one bring judgment upon ones self if it is a metaphor?? How can you eat or drink a metaphor in an "unworthy manner"?


The FACT is that Jesus preached it, Paul preached it, the early Christians practiced it, Clement, Ignatius and whoever wrote the Didache as a catechism for the first Christians didn't think Jesus was speaking metaphorically because they, which is documented as historical FACT, re-affirmed and practiced communion as being His Body and Blood.

I ask you StanJ how YOU can say that Jesus was speaking metaphorically in John 6:48-59? His disciples didn't think he was speaking metaphorically so they walked away (John 6:66). Are you going to walk away also?

 

[StanJ]

One of the LAST things Jesus did with his Apostles was break bread and shared wine (communion) saying “do this in remembrance of me”. One of the FIRST things he did after his resurrection was break bread with his disciples. He was wasn't recognized by them until he broke the bread in Luke 24:35-48. Communion was one of the last things he did before he died and one of the first things he did after he rose from the dead so it was important to Jesus. So now we must ask ourselves WHY was it important to him?

Breaking bread in the New Testament is about eating a meal not about having communion.

Bread and wine are first mentioned in Genesis 14:18 when the priest Melchizedek “brought out bread and wine” as a sacrifice. According to the Letter to the Hebrews 7:17, Jesus is identified as "a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek". In Exodus 16:4 God said to Moses, “Behold, I will rain bread (manna) from Heaven for you…”. And when the people asked what it (manna) was Moses told them “It is the bread which the Lord has given you to eat.” Exodus 16:15

Genesis 14:18 does not say this was a sacrifice. It was a normal tradition to greet a guest with bread and wine. You make associations where there are none and that is called eisegeting. Same goes with Hebrew 7. What it is doing is demonstrating the fact that the Levitical priesthood is no longer applicable under the New Covenant and that Jesus is our only priest. In fact, Melchizedek was a physical manifestation of the Word of God in Genesis 14. Jesus was/is that WORD incarnate. It has nothing to do with communion, despite your attempt to make it so.

Jesus said in John 6 I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died [/color](reference to Exodus16:4). This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh. “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. “This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever”.

In the OT the people who ate the manna (bread) that God sent them while they were in the wilderness died because it was just normal bread. The new manna or bread is Jesus flesh and He is not normal bread. He, his flesh, is the bread of life and he who eats this bread lives forever. If YOU believe that the bread Jesus offers (his flesh) is just like the bread of the OT then what YOU believe contradicts what Jesus said. Paul later re-affirms in 1 Corinthians 10:15 what Jesus said. Paul later WARNS us in 1 Corinthians 11:27-28 that man would be bringing "damnation to himself" if we partake in communion in an unworthy manner and shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord saying that we should examine himself.

Clement (a student of Peter and Paul) wrote in his Letter to the Corinthians: “In the same way, my brothers, when we offer our own Eucharist to God, each one should keep to his own degree (calling)” St. Ignatius of Antioch (a student of the Apostle John) in his Epistles to the Philippians wrote of “one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with His Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice” In his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans he wrote: They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. (earlychristianwritings.com) The Didache says: But let none eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized in the Lord's Name. For concerning this also did the Lord say, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs." (earlychristianwritings.com) Acts 2:42, which would have been written and occurred the same time frame that Clement and St. Ignatius were alive and the Didache was written, talks about the "breaking of bread". So the first Christians (the ones in the bible) and the early Christians (Clement, Ignatius and writers of the Didache) all practiced and believed the same thing.

Again you're looking with your physical eyes and not your spiritual eyes. Jesus was comparing physical food with spiritual food. Obviously the physical food didn't keep them from dying, but Jesus as our spiritual food gives us eternal life. Celebrating that fact doesn't mean we actually eat food. Having him as our Savior is how we assimilate him into our lives and how we inherit eternal life. Your constant attempt to make the spiritual reality a physical one is why you keep failing at associating what Jesus was actually saying. Celebrating the example of communion he set for us at the Last Supper is exactly what he wants is to you.

Athenagoras of Athens wrote around 180 AD that the early Christians were being accused of THYSTEAN FEAST (earlychristianwritings.com). Thyestean Feast is marked by the consumption of human flesh. In other words the non-Christians, who did not participate in church services, thought the early Christians were eating real flesh during communion. Why did they think that? Because the early Christians believed what Jesus said when He said it is His body.

Doesn't really matter what some Greek said in the latter part of the second century and how he did not understand Christian communion. It matters only with the Bible and what Jesus said about it. In that regard it is quite obviously a spiritual matter and not a physical food experience. Your insistence on making it a physical matter shows you really have no spiritual perception whatsoever.

So I ask you AGAIN StanJ: How one can be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord when they eat the bread and drink the cup if it is just a metaphor? WHY would someone need to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup if it is just bread and wine or a symbol? How can one bring judgment upon ones self if it is a metaphor?? How can you eat or drink a metaphor in an "unworthy manner"?

I've answered this a couple of times now so I'm not going to continually repeat myself. Read my responses when I make them. Who exactly do you think you sin against when you sin?

The FACT is that Jesus preached it, Paul preached it, the early Christians practiced it, Clement, Ignatius and whoever wrote the Didache as a catechism for the first Christians didn't think Jesus was speaking metaphorically because they, which is documented as historical FACT, re-affirmed and practiced communion as being His Body and Blood.

I ask you StanJ how YOU can say that Jesus was speaking metaphorically in John 6:48-59? His disciples didn't think he was speaking metaphorically so they walked away (John 6:66). Are you going to walk away also?

The fact is you refuse to recognize sound hermeneutical exegesis in favor of RCC tradition and teaching. The fact is until you recognize your erroneous interpretation you won't ever understand the spiritual reality of who Jesus is in our lives. The Bible says, "God is spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." You can't do that by making things physical.

 

[mjrhealth]

Ignoring all His big words, He is right. Glad Jesus didnt use big words to impress people, suppose Im glad it doesnt impress God either.

 

[tom55]

Breaking bread in the New Testament is about eating a meal not about having communion.

Your right. Jesus just wanted all of us to get together and eat bread and drink wine in his remembrance. It's just a regular old meal. And that's what the first Christians did in scripture. (except for the fact that scripture and Christian history disagrees with you)

Genesis 14:18 does not say this was a sacrifice. It was a normal tradition to greet a guest with bread and wine. You make associations where there are none and that is called eisegeting. Same goes with Hebrew 7. What it is doing is demonstrating the fact that the Levitical priesthood is no longer applicable under the New Covenant and that Jesus is our only priest. In fact, Melchizedek was a physical manifestation of the Word of God in Genesis 14. Jesus was/is that WORD incarnate. It has nothing to do with communion, despite your attempt to make it so.

Genesis 14:18-20 shows that bread and wine were brought out by the priest of the God Most High and then a blessing was said over Abram. A priest of the God Most High wouldn't be bringing out bread and wine like a SERVANT from the kitchen. In scripture a priest is authorized to perform the sacred rites of a religion and is a mediator between man and God. The priest wasn't just bringing out a meal or an appetizer; there is a deeper meaning. I realize you may have overlooked this obvious fact and you may have learned it at one time in your studies of scripture and history. I hope I have refreshed your memory. My memory needs refreshing sometimes also.

Again you're looking with your physical eyes and not your spiritual eyes. Jesus was comparing physical food with spiritual food. Obviously the physical food didn't keep them from dying, but Jesus as our spiritual food gives us eternal life. Celebrating that fact doesn't mean we actually eat food. Having him as our Savior is how we assimilate him into our lives and how we inherit eternal life. Your constant attempt to make the spiritual reality a physical one is why you keep failing at associating what Jesus was actually saying. Celebrating the example of communion he set for us at the Last Supper is exactly what he wants is to you.

You accuse me of eisegeting, however, I don't see where Jesus said He who eats My "spiritual" flesh and drinks My "spiritual" blood has eternal life. He is saying totally the opposite. It seems to me you are being the eisegesis. I am not attempting "to make the spiritual reality a physical reality". I am quoting scripture and you are eisegeting. Like scripture says "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes" (1 Cor. 11:26). As we know from scripture and the early Christian writings they didn't think the bread and drink was normal food. They believed and followed scripture. Except the ones that walked away. I will admit it is a mystery to me how God performs this miracle of turning the bread and wine into Jesus body and blood but God does a lot of things that are a mystery to me.

Doesn't really matter what some Greek said in the latter part of the second century and how he did not understand Christian communion. It matters only with the Bible and what Jesus said about it. In that regard it is quite obviously a spiritual matter and not a physical food experience. Your insistence on making it a physical matter shows you really have no spiritual perception whatsoever.

It also doesn't really matter what YOU or the other heretics said 1500 years after Jesus death or how YOU or they do not understand Christian communion. I agree with John 6:50-51 and as you can see the word spiritual is not in there. As you know Clement, Ignatius and the Didache were not in the latter part of the 2nd Century. Stop trying to re-write historical facts.

I've answered this a couple of times now so I'm not going to continually repeat myself. Read my responses when I make them. Who exactly do you think you sin against when you sin?

I can't find your answer. Would you please quote it for me? You sin against God when you don't believe what he says in scripture.

The fact is you refuse to recognize sound hermeneutical exegesis in favor of RCC tradition and teaching. The fact is until you recognize your erroneous interpretation you won't ever understand the spiritual reality of who Jesus is in our lives. The Bible says, "God is spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." You can't do that by making things physical.

I have not quoted anything from RCC tradition or teaching. I have only quoted scripture and the historical writings of the people who walked and talked with the Apostles. I didn't not consult or quote any Catholic website. It seems you may know more about RCC teaching and traditions than I do. I believe scripture when it says whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way will be guilty of sin against the body and blood of the Lord. How can one eat or drink a metaphor in an unworthy way and commit a sin?? I, Tom55, don't want to be guilty of that sin. The ones who consider it a metaphor or a symbol or who walk away (John 6:66) is guilty of that sin.

 

[mjrhealth]

t also doesn't really matter what YOU or the other heretics said 1500 years

One should be careful about who one calls a heretic, just becasue one doent agre with you doesnt make one a heretic, in fact if you knew Jesus at all you would find He doesnt agree with you either. When Jesus spoke of eaten, it was all about partaking becoming a part of Him. what is say.

More of Him and less of me. Eating the bread and drinking the wine reminds us of what Christ did. and it is a spiritual thing but no it doesnt change into flesh and blood, God is not a cannibal.

When you break te hbread, what does it remind us of---

His broken body and His suffering for us,

When we drink the wine , what does it remind us of.

The blood and water came out His side when pierced by the soldier for Christ was now dead, for us and our sin.

 

[tom55]

One should be careful about who one calls a heretic, just becasue one doent agre with you doesnt make one a heretic, in fact if you knew Jesus at all you would find He doesnt agree with you either. When Jesus spoke of eaten, it was all about partaking becoming a part of Him. what is say.

Heretic defined: a person holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted

Most Christians believe and it is generally accepted what Jesus said; Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. Therefor anyone that doesn't agree with Jesus and holds an opinion with what is generally accepted in a heretic or an apostate.

More of Him and less of me. Eating the bread and drinking the wine reminds us of what Christ did. and it is a spiritual thing but no it doesnt change into flesh and blood, God is not a cannibal.

What you have said is contrary to scripture.

When you break te hbread, what does it remind us of---

His broken body and His suffering for us,

When we drink the wine , what does it remind us of.

The blood and water came out His side when pierced by the soldier for Christ was now dead, for us and our sin.

When we break the bread and drink the wine it is in accordance to what he told us to do in 1 Corinthians 11:24 it has nothing to do with water coming out of his side.
You probably already know this since it is bible 101!!

 

[StanJ]

Breaking bread in the New Testament is about eating a meal not about having communion.Your right. Jesus just wanted all of us to get together and eat bread and drink wine in his remembrance. It's just a regular old meal. And that's what the first Christians did in scripture. (except for the fact that scripture and Christian history disagrees with you)
Genesis 14:18 does not say this was a sacrifice. It was a normal tradition to greet a guest with bread and wine. You make associations where there are none and that is called eisegeting. Same goes with Hebrew 7. What it is doing is demonstrating the fact that the Levitical priesthood is no longer applicable under the New Covenant and that Jesus is our only priest. In fact, Melchizedek was a physical manifestation of the Word of God in Genesis 14. Jesus was/is that WORD incarnate. It has nothing to do with communion, despite your attempt to make it so.

Genesis 14:18-20 shows that bread and wine were brought out by the priest of the God Most High and then a blessing was said over Abram. A priest of the God Most High wouldn't be bringing out bread and wine like a SERVANT from the kitchen. In scripture a priest is authorized to perform the sacred rites of a religion and is a mediator between man and God. The priest wasn't just bringing out a meal or an appetizer; there is a deeper meaning. I realize you may have overlooked this obvious fact and you may have learned it at one time in your studies of scripture and history. I hope I have refreshed your memory. My memory needs refreshing sometimes also.

Again you're looking with your physical eyes and not your spiritual eyes. Jesus was comparing physical food with spiritual food. Obviously the physical food didn't keep them from dying, but Jesus as our spiritual food gives us eternal life. Celebrating that fact doesn't mean we actually eat food. Having him as our Savior is how we assimilate him into our lives and how we inherit eternal life. Your constant attempt to make the spiritual reality a physical one is why you keep failing at associating what Jesus was actually saying. Celebrating the example of communion he set for us at the Last Supper is exactly what he wants is to you.

You accuse me of eisegeting, however, I don't see where Jesus said He who eats My "spiritual" flesh and drinks My "spiritual" blood has eternal life. He is saying totally the opposite. It seems to me you are being the eisegesis. I am not attempting "to make the spiritual reality a physical reality". I am quoting scripture and you are eisegeting. Like scripture says "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes" (1 Cor. 11:26). As we know from scripture and the early Christian writings they didn't think the bread and drink was normal food. They believed and followed scripture. Except the ones that walked away. I will admit it is a mystery to me how God performs this miracle of turning the bread and wine into Jesus body and blood but God does a lot of things that are a mystery to me.

Doesn't really matter what some Greek said in the latter part of the second century and how he did not understand Christian communion. It matters only with the Bible and what Jesus said about it. In that regard it is quite obviously a spiritual matter and not a physical food experience. Your insistence on making it a physical matter shows you really have no spiritual perception whatsoever.

It also doesn't really matter what YOU or the other heretics said 1500 years after Jesus death or how YOU or they do not understand Christian communion. I agree with John 6:50-51 and as you can see the word spiritual is not in there. As you know Clement, Ignatius and the Didache were not in the latter part of the 2nd Century. Stop trying to re-write historical facts.

I've answered this a couple of times now so I'm not going to continually repeat myself. Read my responses when I make them. Who exactly do you think you sin against when you sin?

I can't find your answer. Would you please quote it for me? You sin against God when you don't believe what he says in scripture.
The fact is you refuse to recognize sound hermeneutical exegesis in favor of RCC tradition and teaching. The fact is until you recognize your erroneous interpretation you won't ever understand the spiritual reality of who Jesus is in our lives. The Bible says, "God is spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." You can't do that by making things physical.

I have not quoted anything from RCC tradition or teaching. I have only quoted scripture and the historical writings of the people who walked and talked with the Apostles. I didn't not consult or quote any Catholic website. It seems you may know more about RCC teaching and traditions than I do. I believe scripture when it says whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way will be guilty of sin against the body and blood of the Lord. How can one eat or drink a metaphor in an unworthy way and commit a sin?? I, Tom55, don't want to be guilty of that sin. The ones who consider it a metaphor or a symbol or who walk away (John 6:66) is guilty of that sin.

As you refuse to quote me properly, I refuse to adress your posts accordingly.

 

[tom55]

As you refuse to quote me properly, I refuse to adress your posts accordingly.

I quoted your words to the letter by using the quote button provided by this website. What I think you are saying is you can't REFUTE my post therefor you refuse to address it.

Refute defined: prove a statement to be wrong or false; disprove

 

[StanJ]

I quoted your words to the letter by using the quote button provided by this website. What I think you are saying is you can't REFUTE my post therefor you refuse to address it.

Refute defined: prove a statement to be wrong or false; disprove

No, you just inserted you in blue texts between my text. NOT the proper format, which you well know and refuse to comply with, so ill make it plain, DON'T address me unless you do it in the proper format. You'll find that this request is one you must honor within the rules of CB otherwise I will report it and it will result in an infraction towards your account.

 

[tom55]

No, you just inserted you in blue texts between my text. NOT the proper format, which you well know and refuse to comply with, so ill make it plain, DON'T address me unless you do it in the proper format. You'll find that this request is one you must honor within the rules of CB otherwise I will report it and it will result in an infraction towards your account.

I see nothing in the rules of CB that says I can't use blue text or put my response after your response. You know. Like you did to me in post #82.

 

[StanJ]

I see nothing in the rules of CB that says I can't use blue text or put my response after your response. You know. Like you did to me in post #82.

You're right, but the rules do say you're not to respond to me when I ask you not to, and I have. Your choice, respond properly or don't respond at all.

 

[tom55]

You're right, but the rules do say you're not to respond to me when I ask you not to, and I have. Your choice, respond properly or don't respond at all.

What the rules actually say is: If a member requests the cessation of all personal contact, then please respect that member's wish.

You did not ask me to cease contact. You told me to respond to you in the proper format and there is no proper format in the rules that I have read.

 

[StanJ]

What the rules actually say is: If a member requests the cessation of all personal contact, then please respect that member's wish.
You did not ask me to cease contact. You told me to respond to you in the proper format and there is no proper format in the rules that I have read.

I qualified it, but of course if you have no intention of honouring my request, then you have your answer.

 

[tom55]

I qualified it, but of course if you have no intention of honouring my request, then you have your answer.

Sooooo.....are you saying you want me to cease all communications with you? If so I will respect your request. I can not respect your request for proper format because there is none in the rules that I can see AND I don't know how to use the multiquote!! If you do want me to cease all communications I just want to let you know that I love you and will pray for you.

 

[lforrest]

What the rules actually say is: If a member requests the cessation of all personal contact, then please respect that member's wish.

You did not ask me to cease contact. You told me to respond to you in the proper format and there is no proper format in the rules that I have read.

You can respond in whatever way you want. Stan is free to ignore your posts. Ceasing contact at the request of a member is limited to private communication and not the forums.

 

[tom55]

You can respond in whatever way you want. Stan is free to ignore your posts. Ceasing contact at the request of a member is limited to private communication and not the forums.

Thank you. I didn't realize that. How do I multiquote? OR break up one big post into smaller post?

 

[StanJ]

You can respond in whatever way you want. Stan is free to ignore your posts. Ceasing contact at the request of a member is limited to private communication and not the forums.

I don't think that is correct forrest, as putting someone on ignore would do all that. In any event I have asked for clarification. Do you really think it's also correct to tell him he can respond in whatever way he wants to?

 

[StanJ]

Sooooo.....are you saying you want me to cease all communications with you? If so I will respect your request. I can not respect your request for proper format because there is none in the rules that I can see AND I don't know how to use the multiquote!! If you do want me to cease all communications I just want to let you know that I love you and will pray for you.

If I didn't want to read your post, I'd simply put you on ignore. It seems you do have points to make. I personally would rather follow the format provided by CB. I have no idea why anyone wanting to be a member here, would not want to comply with that? Personally I find your closing to be self-serving and self-righteous.

 

[tom55]

I don't think that is correct forrest, as putting someone on ignore would do all that. In any event I have asked for clarification. Do you really think it's also correct to tell him he can respond in whatever way he wants to?

I'm torn on this one. Personal contact seems to mean one on one email. But if you respond to someone in a post it seems personal also. <_<

 

[mjrhealth]

Heretic,

According to al the variations in different dictionaries, is one who disagrees with someone elses religion. Simply put that makes God, Jesus, teh Holy Spirit, and all the saints and host of heaven Heretics, because they do not, can not, and will not agree with mens religions or doctirnes. One only needs to agree with God and Jesus. Actually all christians are heretics because there is no one religion that agrees with another.